User login
VIDEO: Statins cut mortality in ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis
WASHINGTON – Statins lowered all-cause mortality by 32% in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a retrospective cohort study.
The magnitude of benefit from statins in these two disease states is greater than that found in the general population (estimated 9%-14% reduction in all-cause mortality) and than that reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 21% reduction), said Amar Oza, MD, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
“This is a unique study. The benefit of statins has not been looked at in AS and PsA, specifically,” Dr. Oza explained. “More data are needed” to establish this benefit with certainty, he added.
The data were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, and Dr. Oza discussed the findings in a video interview.
The study compared 2,904 patients with AS or PsA who initiated statins between 2000 and 2014 with 2,904 propensity-matched AS or PsA patients who did not initiate statins during that period. Patients were drawn from a United Kingdom general population database.
The investigators used a propensity score that accounted for 50 confounding variables to match the two cohorts. These variables included, but were not limited to, disease duration, socioeconomic status, body mass index, lifestyle factors, and medication use.
“This study is the first step in elucidating the benefit of statins in AS and PsA. It is a good step forward. If additional data substantiate that AS and PsA patients have a low threshold for statins, I can envision statins for both primary and secondary prevention in this patient population,” Dr. Oza stated.
The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
WASHINGTON – Statins lowered all-cause mortality by 32% in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a retrospective cohort study.
The magnitude of benefit from statins in these two disease states is greater than that found in the general population (estimated 9%-14% reduction in all-cause mortality) and than that reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 21% reduction), said Amar Oza, MD, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
“This is a unique study. The benefit of statins has not been looked at in AS and PsA, specifically,” Dr. Oza explained. “More data are needed” to establish this benefit with certainty, he added.
The data were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, and Dr. Oza discussed the findings in a video interview.
The study compared 2,904 patients with AS or PsA who initiated statins between 2000 and 2014 with 2,904 propensity-matched AS or PsA patients who did not initiate statins during that period. Patients were drawn from a United Kingdom general population database.
The investigators used a propensity score that accounted for 50 confounding variables to match the two cohorts. These variables included, but were not limited to, disease duration, socioeconomic status, body mass index, lifestyle factors, and medication use.
“This study is the first step in elucidating the benefit of statins in AS and PsA. It is a good step forward. If additional data substantiate that AS and PsA patients have a low threshold for statins, I can envision statins for both primary and secondary prevention in this patient population,” Dr. Oza stated.
The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
WASHINGTON – Statins lowered all-cause mortality by 32% in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a retrospective cohort study.
The magnitude of benefit from statins in these two disease states is greater than that found in the general population (estimated 9%-14% reduction in all-cause mortality) and than that reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 21% reduction), said Amar Oza, MD, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
“This is a unique study. The benefit of statins has not been looked at in AS and PsA, specifically,” Dr. Oza explained. “More data are needed” to establish this benefit with certainty, he added.
The data were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, and Dr. Oza discussed the findings in a video interview.
The study compared 2,904 patients with AS or PsA who initiated statins between 2000 and 2014 with 2,904 propensity-matched AS or PsA patients who did not initiate statins during that period. Patients were drawn from a United Kingdom general population database.
The investigators used a propensity score that accounted for 50 confounding variables to match the two cohorts. These variables included, but were not limited to, disease duration, socioeconomic status, body mass index, lifestyle factors, and medication use.
“This study is the first step in elucidating the benefit of statins in AS and PsA. It is a good step forward. If additional data substantiate that AS and PsA patients have a low threshold for statins, I can envision statins for both primary and secondary prevention in this patient population,” Dr. Oza stated.
The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT THE ACR ANNUAL MEETING
Breast milk doesn’t contain meaningful levels of certolizumab pegol
WASHINGTON – Certolizumab pegol is not transmitted into human breast milk in any clinically meaningful level, a postmarketing pharmacokinetic study has determined.
While there were individual differences in how much of the TNF inhibitor did cross into milk, none of the 17 women in the study transmitted more than 0.076 mcg/mL in any sample, Megan Clowse, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
“This is well below even 1% of the expected plasma concentration of a therapeutic dose,” said Dr. Clowse, a rheumatologist and director of the Duke Autoimmunity in Pregnancy Registry at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Additionally, the mean relative infant dose was 0.125% – also far below the cutoff of less than 10% of the adult dose, the level generally thought to be of little concern for infant well-being.”
The transmission potential, however, has always been assumed to be low. “It’s a protein that would largely be degraded in the gastrointestinal tract of the baby, so there would be low bioavailability. But also CZP has no Fc portion, so it is not pulled across the intestinal lumina by the neonatal Fc receptor.”
Despite those assumptions and the positive – although limited – data, UCB conducted a 4-week postmarketing study to fully determine transmission levels. The CRADLE study enrolled 17 women taking CZP while breastfeeding healthy, full-term infants. Breast milk samples were taken at days 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 across one dosing period (14 days for those taking 200 mg every 2 weeks; and 28 days for those taking 400 mg every 4 weeks).
In addition to being the first study to estimate the average daily infant dose, CRADLE used a specially created ELISA to measure the drug. “This was a very carefully thought-out measure designed to be 10 times more sensitive than any assay ever used to identify this drug,” Dr. Clowse said. “It had a very high specificity, having to attach to both the TNF portion and the PEG component.”
All the women had a healthy term infant who was exclusively breastfed. Mothers had to be in steady-state dosing with at least three prior doses before the first sample and could not have taken any other biologics within five half-lives of those medications.
The mean age of the 17 women in the analysis was 34 years. Rheumatoid arthritis was the most common diagnosis (7); other conditions were Crohn’s disease (5), psoriatic arthritis (3), and ankylosing spondylitis (2). The majority of the infants (13) were younger than 6 months at the time of the study.
Most of the women (13) had some measurable CZP in at least one sample, and four had measurable CZP in almost every sample. But of the entire 137 samples tested, 77 (56%) came back below the limit of quantification, which was less than 0.032 mcg/mL. Another 52 samples came back as less than twice the lower limit of quantification (less than 0.064 mcg/mL). Among these, though, most were less than 0.050 mcg/mL. Only eight samples approached the level of less than three times the lower limit of quantification (less than 0.096 mcg/mL); of these, the highest level was 0.076 mcg/mL.
There were some strong individual trends, Dr. Clowse noted. Only two women showed the highest levels: Out of seven samples, one had two such readings, and the other had five. In four women, all of the samples were below the lower limit of quantification. The rest of the women had mixed results, which tended to cluster in the middle of their treatment cycle and then go down.
The median maximum concentration in breast milk was 0.04285 mcg/mL, which translated to an average daily infant dose of 0.0035 mg/kg/day. This was an infant dose of 0.125% of the mother’s dose, Dr. Clowse said.
A 5-week safety study followed the breast milk sampling phase. During this time, nine infants had some sort of event. These were mild and not different from that normally seen in breastfed infants. Several events were paired with maternal events, Dr. Clowse said. Two pairs had upper respiratory tract infections, and one mother developed a Candida skin infection while her infant developed oral candidiasis.
UCB sponsored the CRADLE study. Dr. Clowse is a consultant for the company.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
WASHINGTON – Certolizumab pegol is not transmitted into human breast milk in any clinically meaningful level, a postmarketing pharmacokinetic study has determined.
While there were individual differences in how much of the TNF inhibitor did cross into milk, none of the 17 women in the study transmitted more than 0.076 mcg/mL in any sample, Megan Clowse, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
“This is well below even 1% of the expected plasma concentration of a therapeutic dose,” said Dr. Clowse, a rheumatologist and director of the Duke Autoimmunity in Pregnancy Registry at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Additionally, the mean relative infant dose was 0.125% – also far below the cutoff of less than 10% of the adult dose, the level generally thought to be of little concern for infant well-being.”
The transmission potential, however, has always been assumed to be low. “It’s a protein that would largely be degraded in the gastrointestinal tract of the baby, so there would be low bioavailability. But also CZP has no Fc portion, so it is not pulled across the intestinal lumina by the neonatal Fc receptor.”
Despite those assumptions and the positive – although limited – data, UCB conducted a 4-week postmarketing study to fully determine transmission levels. The CRADLE study enrolled 17 women taking CZP while breastfeeding healthy, full-term infants. Breast milk samples were taken at days 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 across one dosing period (14 days for those taking 200 mg every 2 weeks; and 28 days for those taking 400 mg every 4 weeks).
In addition to being the first study to estimate the average daily infant dose, CRADLE used a specially created ELISA to measure the drug. “This was a very carefully thought-out measure designed to be 10 times more sensitive than any assay ever used to identify this drug,” Dr. Clowse said. “It had a very high specificity, having to attach to both the TNF portion and the PEG component.”
All the women had a healthy term infant who was exclusively breastfed. Mothers had to be in steady-state dosing with at least three prior doses before the first sample and could not have taken any other biologics within five half-lives of those medications.
The mean age of the 17 women in the analysis was 34 years. Rheumatoid arthritis was the most common diagnosis (7); other conditions were Crohn’s disease (5), psoriatic arthritis (3), and ankylosing spondylitis (2). The majority of the infants (13) were younger than 6 months at the time of the study.
Most of the women (13) had some measurable CZP in at least one sample, and four had measurable CZP in almost every sample. But of the entire 137 samples tested, 77 (56%) came back below the limit of quantification, which was less than 0.032 mcg/mL. Another 52 samples came back as less than twice the lower limit of quantification (less than 0.064 mcg/mL). Among these, though, most were less than 0.050 mcg/mL. Only eight samples approached the level of less than three times the lower limit of quantification (less than 0.096 mcg/mL); of these, the highest level was 0.076 mcg/mL.
There were some strong individual trends, Dr. Clowse noted. Only two women showed the highest levels: Out of seven samples, one had two such readings, and the other had five. In four women, all of the samples were below the lower limit of quantification. The rest of the women had mixed results, which tended to cluster in the middle of their treatment cycle and then go down.
The median maximum concentration in breast milk was 0.04285 mcg/mL, which translated to an average daily infant dose of 0.0035 mg/kg/day. This was an infant dose of 0.125% of the mother’s dose, Dr. Clowse said.
A 5-week safety study followed the breast milk sampling phase. During this time, nine infants had some sort of event. These were mild and not different from that normally seen in breastfed infants. Several events were paired with maternal events, Dr. Clowse said. Two pairs had upper respiratory tract infections, and one mother developed a Candida skin infection while her infant developed oral candidiasis.
UCB sponsored the CRADLE study. Dr. Clowse is a consultant for the company.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
WASHINGTON – Certolizumab pegol is not transmitted into human breast milk in any clinically meaningful level, a postmarketing pharmacokinetic study has determined.
While there were individual differences in how much of the TNF inhibitor did cross into milk, none of the 17 women in the study transmitted more than 0.076 mcg/mL in any sample, Megan Clowse, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
“This is well below even 1% of the expected plasma concentration of a therapeutic dose,” said Dr. Clowse, a rheumatologist and director of the Duke Autoimmunity in Pregnancy Registry at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Additionally, the mean relative infant dose was 0.125% – also far below the cutoff of less than 10% of the adult dose, the level generally thought to be of little concern for infant well-being.”
The transmission potential, however, has always been assumed to be low. “It’s a protein that would largely be degraded in the gastrointestinal tract of the baby, so there would be low bioavailability. But also CZP has no Fc portion, so it is not pulled across the intestinal lumina by the neonatal Fc receptor.”
Despite those assumptions and the positive – although limited – data, UCB conducted a 4-week postmarketing study to fully determine transmission levels. The CRADLE study enrolled 17 women taking CZP while breastfeeding healthy, full-term infants. Breast milk samples were taken at days 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 across one dosing period (14 days for those taking 200 mg every 2 weeks; and 28 days for those taking 400 mg every 4 weeks).
In addition to being the first study to estimate the average daily infant dose, CRADLE used a specially created ELISA to measure the drug. “This was a very carefully thought-out measure designed to be 10 times more sensitive than any assay ever used to identify this drug,” Dr. Clowse said. “It had a very high specificity, having to attach to both the TNF portion and the PEG component.”
All the women had a healthy term infant who was exclusively breastfed. Mothers had to be in steady-state dosing with at least three prior doses before the first sample and could not have taken any other biologics within five half-lives of those medications.
The mean age of the 17 women in the analysis was 34 years. Rheumatoid arthritis was the most common diagnosis (7); other conditions were Crohn’s disease (5), psoriatic arthritis (3), and ankylosing spondylitis (2). The majority of the infants (13) were younger than 6 months at the time of the study.
Most of the women (13) had some measurable CZP in at least one sample, and four had measurable CZP in almost every sample. But of the entire 137 samples tested, 77 (56%) came back below the limit of quantification, which was less than 0.032 mcg/mL. Another 52 samples came back as less than twice the lower limit of quantification (less than 0.064 mcg/mL). Among these, though, most were less than 0.050 mcg/mL. Only eight samples approached the level of less than three times the lower limit of quantification (less than 0.096 mcg/mL); of these, the highest level was 0.076 mcg/mL.
There were some strong individual trends, Dr. Clowse noted. Only two women showed the highest levels: Out of seven samples, one had two such readings, and the other had five. In four women, all of the samples were below the lower limit of quantification. The rest of the women had mixed results, which tended to cluster in the middle of their treatment cycle and then go down.
The median maximum concentration in breast milk was 0.04285 mcg/mL, which translated to an average daily infant dose of 0.0035 mg/kg/day. This was an infant dose of 0.125% of the mother’s dose, Dr. Clowse said.
A 5-week safety study followed the breast milk sampling phase. During this time, nine infants had some sort of event. These were mild and not different from that normally seen in breastfed infants. Several events were paired with maternal events, Dr. Clowse said. Two pairs had upper respiratory tract infections, and one mother developed a Candida skin infection while her infant developed oral candidiasis.
UCB sponsored the CRADLE study. Dr. Clowse is a consultant for the company.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
AT THE ACR ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: None of the 137 samples contained more than 0.076 mcg/mL of the drug.
Data source: The 4-week postmarketing study comprised 17 breastfeeding women.
Disclosures: UCB sponsored the study. Dr. Clowse is a consultant for the company.
Infliximab biosimilar posts mostly reassuring data in Norway’s NOR-SWITCH study
WASHINGTON – Data from the first randomized trial of switching from an originator biologic to a biosimilar of the originator indicate that the infliximab biosimilar Remsima is no different from the infliximab originator Remicade in the rate of disease worsening over 1 year across a combination of all its approved indications.
The outcomes of the Norwegian, double-blind, noninferiority trial, called NOR-SWITCH, indicate similar rates of disease worsening across patients switched to Remsima and those who stayed on Remicade. However, exploratory group analyses conducted on the different disease subgroups in the trial (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis) showed a potentially concerning level of disease worsening among Crohn’s disease patients on Remsima with a confidence interval that nearly fell entirely within the range favoring Remicade.
In the United States, Remsima, also known as CT-P13, is marketed by Pfizer as Inflectra.
The trial randomized 482 patients who were on stable treatment with Remicade for at least 6 months for any of the six indications for which Remicade and Remsima are approved to either stay on Remicade or switch to Remsima with the same dosing regimen for 52 weeks. Overall, patients had a mean age of about 48 years and 36%-41% were female. They had a mean disease duration of about 17 years and had been taking Remicade for a mean of nearly 7 years.
The primary endpoint was disease worsening during follow-up, according to worsening in disease-specific composite measures and/or a consensus between an investigator and a patient that led to a major change in treatment. The investigators made an assumption of 30% disease worsening across all the indications for the trial’s power calculation, based on available literature and observational data.
Disease worsening occurred in 26.2% of patients who stayed on Remicade and 29.6% of patients who switched to Remsima, based on a per-protocol analysis of 202 Remicade and 206 Remsima patients. The 95% confidence interval of the adjusted treatment difference of –4.4% was –12.7% to 3.9%, which was within the pre-specified noninferiority margin of 15%.
Exploratory subgroup analyses of the different disease subgroups showed no statistically significant differences between the two treatments in disease worsening. However, in Crohn’s disease patients, who formed the largest subgroup in the study at 155 patients, the adjusted treatment difference was –14.3% (21.2% with disease worsening for Remicade and 36.5% for Remsima) with a 95% CI of –29.3% to 0.7%.
It’s difficult to discern whether the 95% confidence interval seen in the Crohn’s disease subgroup is a part of the natural variation one would expect to see in a subgroup analysis of different diseases or if there might be a true signal for disease worsening in the Crohn’s disease patients who took Remsima. “The problem is that it’s in the largest subgroup that has no other data. If this had been in rheumatoid arthritis, that would be different,” coauthor Inge C. Olsen, PhD, a biostatistician at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, said in an interview. “All the registry trials were done in RA and spondyloarthritis patients. ... That’s an issue, but with regards to the [NOR-SWITCH] study, it’s very clear that you have no power to show anything in the subgroup analysis, and they are exploratory analyses and are not answering any hypothesis.” Currently, there are no plans to follow up on these results in another study, he said.
Other issues that the NOR-SWITCH study does not answer are the outcomes of switching back and forth between Remicade and Remsima, switching from one infliximab biosimilar to another infliximab biosimilar, and switching from other originator biologics to their biosimilars.
“Is that feasible? Is that safe? Will it retain efficacy? We don’t know. There’s a real need for those studies to be done,” Dr. Goll said.
In Norway, the remaining patients who had not switched yet from Remicade to Remsima are now doing so based on the trial’s results, Dr. Goll said. The cost of Remsima in Norway was about 75% less than Remicade in 2015 and about 60% less in 2016, she noted.
It’s still an open question what the results of the NOR-SWITCH trial might indicate for how clinicians in the United States will use Inflectra and other biosimilars, according to John J. Cush, MD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University, Dallas.
“I think the real problem here is that it’s nice to know that [CT-P13] wasn’t inferior, but when you get into the weeds and you look at the details, those of us who may not have a lot of certainty about this might worry about this, especially when there are three new biosimilars approved in the United States: Amjevita, which is an adalimumab biosimilar; Erelzi, which is an etanercept biosimilar; and Inflectra’s about to be launched as an infliximab biosimilar,” Dr. Cush said during a session reviewing selected abstracts from the meeting. “When this NOR-SWITCH study was done in Norway, it’s a 70% savings over the original product. The new ones being introduced over here [in the United States] start at about 15%. I’m less motivated with that degree of savings to want to take some chances on my patients. So we need a little bit more certainty; we need to feel better about the cost savings to patients and health care overall. Confidence in biosimilars is what’s going to sell biosimilars. We’re a long way from confidence still.”
NOR-SWITCH was funded by the Norwegian government. Some of the investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer and/or Celltrion, which separately market CT-P13 in different parts of the world.
[email protected]
WASHINGTON – Data from the first randomized trial of switching from an originator biologic to a biosimilar of the originator indicate that the infliximab biosimilar Remsima is no different from the infliximab originator Remicade in the rate of disease worsening over 1 year across a combination of all its approved indications.
The outcomes of the Norwegian, double-blind, noninferiority trial, called NOR-SWITCH, indicate similar rates of disease worsening across patients switched to Remsima and those who stayed on Remicade. However, exploratory group analyses conducted on the different disease subgroups in the trial (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis) showed a potentially concerning level of disease worsening among Crohn’s disease patients on Remsima with a confidence interval that nearly fell entirely within the range favoring Remicade.
In the United States, Remsima, also known as CT-P13, is marketed by Pfizer as Inflectra.
The trial randomized 482 patients who were on stable treatment with Remicade for at least 6 months for any of the six indications for which Remicade and Remsima are approved to either stay on Remicade or switch to Remsima with the same dosing regimen for 52 weeks. Overall, patients had a mean age of about 48 years and 36%-41% were female. They had a mean disease duration of about 17 years and had been taking Remicade for a mean of nearly 7 years.
The primary endpoint was disease worsening during follow-up, according to worsening in disease-specific composite measures and/or a consensus between an investigator and a patient that led to a major change in treatment. The investigators made an assumption of 30% disease worsening across all the indications for the trial’s power calculation, based on available literature and observational data.
Disease worsening occurred in 26.2% of patients who stayed on Remicade and 29.6% of patients who switched to Remsima, based on a per-protocol analysis of 202 Remicade and 206 Remsima patients. The 95% confidence interval of the adjusted treatment difference of –4.4% was –12.7% to 3.9%, which was within the pre-specified noninferiority margin of 15%.
Exploratory subgroup analyses of the different disease subgroups showed no statistically significant differences between the two treatments in disease worsening. However, in Crohn’s disease patients, who formed the largest subgroup in the study at 155 patients, the adjusted treatment difference was –14.3% (21.2% with disease worsening for Remicade and 36.5% for Remsima) with a 95% CI of –29.3% to 0.7%.
It’s difficult to discern whether the 95% confidence interval seen in the Crohn’s disease subgroup is a part of the natural variation one would expect to see in a subgroup analysis of different diseases or if there might be a true signal for disease worsening in the Crohn’s disease patients who took Remsima. “The problem is that it’s in the largest subgroup that has no other data. If this had been in rheumatoid arthritis, that would be different,” coauthor Inge C. Olsen, PhD, a biostatistician at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, said in an interview. “All the registry trials were done in RA and spondyloarthritis patients. ... That’s an issue, but with regards to the [NOR-SWITCH] study, it’s very clear that you have no power to show anything in the subgroup analysis, and they are exploratory analyses and are not answering any hypothesis.” Currently, there are no plans to follow up on these results in another study, he said.
Other issues that the NOR-SWITCH study does not answer are the outcomes of switching back and forth between Remicade and Remsima, switching from one infliximab biosimilar to another infliximab biosimilar, and switching from other originator biologics to their biosimilars.
“Is that feasible? Is that safe? Will it retain efficacy? We don’t know. There’s a real need for those studies to be done,” Dr. Goll said.
In Norway, the remaining patients who had not switched yet from Remicade to Remsima are now doing so based on the trial’s results, Dr. Goll said. The cost of Remsima in Norway was about 75% less than Remicade in 2015 and about 60% less in 2016, she noted.
It’s still an open question what the results of the NOR-SWITCH trial might indicate for how clinicians in the United States will use Inflectra and other biosimilars, according to John J. Cush, MD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University, Dallas.
“I think the real problem here is that it’s nice to know that [CT-P13] wasn’t inferior, but when you get into the weeds and you look at the details, those of us who may not have a lot of certainty about this might worry about this, especially when there are three new biosimilars approved in the United States: Amjevita, which is an adalimumab biosimilar; Erelzi, which is an etanercept biosimilar; and Inflectra’s about to be launched as an infliximab biosimilar,” Dr. Cush said during a session reviewing selected abstracts from the meeting. “When this NOR-SWITCH study was done in Norway, it’s a 70% savings over the original product. The new ones being introduced over here [in the United States] start at about 15%. I’m less motivated with that degree of savings to want to take some chances on my patients. So we need a little bit more certainty; we need to feel better about the cost savings to patients and health care overall. Confidence in biosimilars is what’s going to sell biosimilars. We’re a long way from confidence still.”
NOR-SWITCH was funded by the Norwegian government. Some of the investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer and/or Celltrion, which separately market CT-P13 in different parts of the world.
[email protected]
WASHINGTON – Data from the first randomized trial of switching from an originator biologic to a biosimilar of the originator indicate that the infliximab biosimilar Remsima is no different from the infliximab originator Remicade in the rate of disease worsening over 1 year across a combination of all its approved indications.
The outcomes of the Norwegian, double-blind, noninferiority trial, called NOR-SWITCH, indicate similar rates of disease worsening across patients switched to Remsima and those who stayed on Remicade. However, exploratory group analyses conducted on the different disease subgroups in the trial (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis) showed a potentially concerning level of disease worsening among Crohn’s disease patients on Remsima with a confidence interval that nearly fell entirely within the range favoring Remicade.
In the United States, Remsima, also known as CT-P13, is marketed by Pfizer as Inflectra.
The trial randomized 482 patients who were on stable treatment with Remicade for at least 6 months for any of the six indications for which Remicade and Remsima are approved to either stay on Remicade or switch to Remsima with the same dosing regimen for 52 weeks. Overall, patients had a mean age of about 48 years and 36%-41% were female. They had a mean disease duration of about 17 years and had been taking Remicade for a mean of nearly 7 years.
The primary endpoint was disease worsening during follow-up, according to worsening in disease-specific composite measures and/or a consensus between an investigator and a patient that led to a major change in treatment. The investigators made an assumption of 30% disease worsening across all the indications for the trial’s power calculation, based on available literature and observational data.
Disease worsening occurred in 26.2% of patients who stayed on Remicade and 29.6% of patients who switched to Remsima, based on a per-protocol analysis of 202 Remicade and 206 Remsima patients. The 95% confidence interval of the adjusted treatment difference of –4.4% was –12.7% to 3.9%, which was within the pre-specified noninferiority margin of 15%.
Exploratory subgroup analyses of the different disease subgroups showed no statistically significant differences between the two treatments in disease worsening. However, in Crohn’s disease patients, who formed the largest subgroup in the study at 155 patients, the adjusted treatment difference was –14.3% (21.2% with disease worsening for Remicade and 36.5% for Remsima) with a 95% CI of –29.3% to 0.7%.
It’s difficult to discern whether the 95% confidence interval seen in the Crohn’s disease subgroup is a part of the natural variation one would expect to see in a subgroup analysis of different diseases or if there might be a true signal for disease worsening in the Crohn’s disease patients who took Remsima. “The problem is that it’s in the largest subgroup that has no other data. If this had been in rheumatoid arthritis, that would be different,” coauthor Inge C. Olsen, PhD, a biostatistician at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, said in an interview. “All the registry trials were done in RA and spondyloarthritis patients. ... That’s an issue, but with regards to the [NOR-SWITCH] study, it’s very clear that you have no power to show anything in the subgroup analysis, and they are exploratory analyses and are not answering any hypothesis.” Currently, there are no plans to follow up on these results in another study, he said.
Other issues that the NOR-SWITCH study does not answer are the outcomes of switching back and forth between Remicade and Remsima, switching from one infliximab biosimilar to another infliximab biosimilar, and switching from other originator biologics to their biosimilars.
“Is that feasible? Is that safe? Will it retain efficacy? We don’t know. There’s a real need for those studies to be done,” Dr. Goll said.
In Norway, the remaining patients who had not switched yet from Remicade to Remsima are now doing so based on the trial’s results, Dr. Goll said. The cost of Remsima in Norway was about 75% less than Remicade in 2015 and about 60% less in 2016, she noted.
It’s still an open question what the results of the NOR-SWITCH trial might indicate for how clinicians in the United States will use Inflectra and other biosimilars, according to John J. Cush, MD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University, Dallas.
“I think the real problem here is that it’s nice to know that [CT-P13] wasn’t inferior, but when you get into the weeds and you look at the details, those of us who may not have a lot of certainty about this might worry about this, especially when there are three new biosimilars approved in the United States: Amjevita, which is an adalimumab biosimilar; Erelzi, which is an etanercept biosimilar; and Inflectra’s about to be launched as an infliximab biosimilar,” Dr. Cush said during a session reviewing selected abstracts from the meeting. “When this NOR-SWITCH study was done in Norway, it’s a 70% savings over the original product. The new ones being introduced over here [in the United States] start at about 15%. I’m less motivated with that degree of savings to want to take some chances on my patients. So we need a little bit more certainty; we need to feel better about the cost savings to patients and health care overall. Confidence in biosimilars is what’s going to sell biosimilars. We’re a long way from confidence still.”
NOR-SWITCH was funded by the Norwegian government. Some of the investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer and/or Celltrion, which separately market CT-P13 in different parts of the world.
[email protected]
AT THE ACR ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Disease worsening occurred in 26.2% of patients who stayed on Remicade and 29.6% of patients who switched to Remsima, based on a per-protocol analysis.
Data source: The multicenter, double-blind, randomized NOR-SWITCH trial of 482 patients.
Disclosures: The trial was funded by the Norwegian government. Some of the investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer and/or Celltrion, which separately market CT-P13 in different parts of the world.
VIDEO: Biologics: Proposed guideline addresses perioperative management
WASHINGTON – Biologic agents should be stopped prior to elective total knee or hip arthroplasty in patients with rheumatic diseases, according to a draft guideline developed by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.
The guideline, which address the perioperative management of antirheumatic medications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), or lupus who are undergoing such surgery, is currently under review, Dr. Susan Goodman, MD, coprincipal investigator, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
The draft guideline was created because “guidance was needed for common clinical situations, even where data were sparse. We didn’t want to configure treatment mandates – that’s not what these are,” Dr. Goodman of Cornell University, New York, said.
The recommendations are conditional, she said, meaning that the benefits probably outweigh the harms, that the recommendations apply to most but not all patients, and that future research may lead to changes.
“They’re also preference sensitive,” she said, explaining that patients’ values and preferences should be carefully considered, as they might differ from those of the patient panel consulted during guideline development; the panel expressed greater concern about the risk of infection following surgery than about perioperative flares resulting from medication discontinuation.
Based on agreement by at least 80% of a voting panel which considered available evidence in the context of their clinical experience along with the input from the patient panel, the draft guideline states that:
• Current doses of methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine should be continued in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing elective hip and knee replacement. This recommendation is based on an extensive literature review that showed the infection rate is decreased in patients who continue these medications, Dr. Goodman said.
• All biologics should be withheld prior to surgery in patients with inflammatory arthritis, and surgery should be planned for the end of the dosing cycle. This matter wasn’t specifically addressed in the literature; however, numerous randomized controlled trials outside of the surgical setting demonstrate an increased risk of infection associated with their use, she noted.
“All of the biologic medications were found to be associated with an increased risk of infection,” she said. “Because of this and the level of importance patients place on minimizing infection risk, we’ve recommended that biologics be withheld prior to surgery.”
• Tofacitinib, which was considered in a separate oral, targeted therapy category, should be withheld for at least 7 days prior to surgery in patients with RA, spondyloarthritis, and JIA. Data from systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed an increased risk of infection with tofacitinib, although more research is needed in order to “firm up” this recommendation, Dr. Goodman said.
• In lupus patients, rituximab and belimumab should be withheld prior to surgery, and surgery should be planned for the end of the dosing period.
“Again, this was not answered in the literature. We depended on observational studies that we reviewed that did show that patients with severe active lupus were at much higher risk for adverse events. But since rituximab isn’t approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for use in lupus, and belimumab isn’t approved for use in severe lupus – and those seem to be the high-risk patients – we thought withholding them was more prudent,” she said.
• Patients with severe lupus should continue on current doses of methotrexate, mycophenolic acid, azathioprine, mizoribine, cyclosporine, and tacrolimus through surgery. This recommendation is based on indirect data from experience in organ transplant patients.
• All medications should be discontinued in patients whose lupus is not severe.
“Our recommendation is to withhold for 7 days to 2-5 days after surgery in the absence of any wound healing complications or any other complications,” she said, noting that the literature does not directly address this; the recommendation is based on indirect evidence in patients with either active infection or who are at risk for infection.
“We thought that careful monitoring of the patient would permit us to identify flare and intervene quickly. … and that, for mild cases of lupus, the morbidity associated with infection might not be greater than the morbidity associated with the disease flare,” she said.
• Biologics should be restarted once surgical wounds show evidence of healing and there is no clinical evidence of infection. The literature does not directly address this; the recommendation is based on the rationale for use of these medications in patients with either active infection or risk for infection.
• Current daily doses of glucocorticoids, rather than supraphysiologic doses, should be continued in adults with RA, lupus, or inflammatory arthritis. A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trial data and observational data showed no hemodynamic difference between daily doses and stress doses.
“In addition, there are abundant observational data demonstrating an increase in infection in patients on chronic steroids greater than 15 mg, and we thought that part of the optimization of the patient would be getting them on the lowest possible steroid dose,” she said, stressing that this refers only to adults receiving glucocorticoids for their rheumatic disease, and not to those with a history of JIA who may have received steroids during development, or to those receiving glucocorticoids for primary, adrenal, or hypothalamic disease.
According to Dr. Goodman, the time is right for the introduction of these recommendations, because the increased use of disease-modifying drugs and biologics means that most patients coming in for these surgeries will be taking these medications.
Further, despite the widespread use of the medications, the rate of total knee and hip arthroplasty surgeries among patients with rheumatic diseases is about the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago – and their risk for devastating complications, including infections, remains high, she said, noting that appropriate medication management provides an opportunity to mitigate risk.
Coprincipal investigator, Bryan Springer, MD, further emphasized the importance of the guideline, noting that the 5-year survival among rheumatic disease patients who develop certain perioperative complications is lower than for many common cancers, and that the literature offers little guidance on managing medications in the perioperative period.
“We now have a document that’s based on the available evidence, and also based on expert opinion, to help us manage these patients much more thoroughly in the perioperative period,” Dr. Springer, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., said during a press briefing on the guideline.
Dr. Springer highlighted the value of the unique collaboration between the ACR and the AAHKS, calling the effort a win both for patients, and for “collaborative efforts, collaborative research, which we just really don’t do enough of,” he said. “I hope this is a huge step towards that direction.”
This guideline development process was funded by the ACR and AAHKS.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
WASHINGTON – Biologic agents should be stopped prior to elective total knee or hip arthroplasty in patients with rheumatic diseases, according to a draft guideline developed by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.
The guideline, which address the perioperative management of antirheumatic medications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), or lupus who are undergoing such surgery, is currently under review, Dr. Susan Goodman, MD, coprincipal investigator, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
The draft guideline was created because “guidance was needed for common clinical situations, even where data were sparse. We didn’t want to configure treatment mandates – that’s not what these are,” Dr. Goodman of Cornell University, New York, said.
The recommendations are conditional, she said, meaning that the benefits probably outweigh the harms, that the recommendations apply to most but not all patients, and that future research may lead to changes.
“They’re also preference sensitive,” she said, explaining that patients’ values and preferences should be carefully considered, as they might differ from those of the patient panel consulted during guideline development; the panel expressed greater concern about the risk of infection following surgery than about perioperative flares resulting from medication discontinuation.
Based on agreement by at least 80% of a voting panel which considered available evidence in the context of their clinical experience along with the input from the patient panel, the draft guideline states that:
• Current doses of methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine should be continued in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing elective hip and knee replacement. This recommendation is based on an extensive literature review that showed the infection rate is decreased in patients who continue these medications, Dr. Goodman said.
• All biologics should be withheld prior to surgery in patients with inflammatory arthritis, and surgery should be planned for the end of the dosing cycle. This matter wasn’t specifically addressed in the literature; however, numerous randomized controlled trials outside of the surgical setting demonstrate an increased risk of infection associated with their use, she noted.
“All of the biologic medications were found to be associated with an increased risk of infection,” she said. “Because of this and the level of importance patients place on minimizing infection risk, we’ve recommended that biologics be withheld prior to surgery.”
• Tofacitinib, which was considered in a separate oral, targeted therapy category, should be withheld for at least 7 days prior to surgery in patients with RA, spondyloarthritis, and JIA. Data from systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed an increased risk of infection with tofacitinib, although more research is needed in order to “firm up” this recommendation, Dr. Goodman said.
• In lupus patients, rituximab and belimumab should be withheld prior to surgery, and surgery should be planned for the end of the dosing period.
“Again, this was not answered in the literature. We depended on observational studies that we reviewed that did show that patients with severe active lupus were at much higher risk for adverse events. But since rituximab isn’t approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for use in lupus, and belimumab isn’t approved for use in severe lupus – and those seem to be the high-risk patients – we thought withholding them was more prudent,” she said.
• Patients with severe lupus should continue on current doses of methotrexate, mycophenolic acid, azathioprine, mizoribine, cyclosporine, and tacrolimus through surgery. This recommendation is based on indirect data from experience in organ transplant patients.
• All medications should be discontinued in patients whose lupus is not severe.
“Our recommendation is to withhold for 7 days to 2-5 days after surgery in the absence of any wound healing complications or any other complications,” she said, noting that the literature does not directly address this; the recommendation is based on indirect evidence in patients with either active infection or who are at risk for infection.
“We thought that careful monitoring of the patient would permit us to identify flare and intervene quickly. … and that, for mild cases of lupus, the morbidity associated with infection might not be greater than the morbidity associated with the disease flare,” she said.
• Biologics should be restarted once surgical wounds show evidence of healing and there is no clinical evidence of infection. The literature does not directly address this; the recommendation is based on the rationale for use of these medications in patients with either active infection or risk for infection.
• Current daily doses of glucocorticoids, rather than supraphysiologic doses, should be continued in adults with RA, lupus, or inflammatory arthritis. A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trial data and observational data showed no hemodynamic difference between daily doses and stress doses.
“In addition, there are abundant observational data demonstrating an increase in infection in patients on chronic steroids greater than 15 mg, and we thought that part of the optimization of the patient would be getting them on the lowest possible steroid dose,” she said, stressing that this refers only to adults receiving glucocorticoids for their rheumatic disease, and not to those with a history of JIA who may have received steroids during development, or to those receiving glucocorticoids for primary, adrenal, or hypothalamic disease.
According to Dr. Goodman, the time is right for the introduction of these recommendations, because the increased use of disease-modifying drugs and biologics means that most patients coming in for these surgeries will be taking these medications.
Further, despite the widespread use of the medications, the rate of total knee and hip arthroplasty surgeries among patients with rheumatic diseases is about the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago – and their risk for devastating complications, including infections, remains high, she said, noting that appropriate medication management provides an opportunity to mitigate risk.
Coprincipal investigator, Bryan Springer, MD, further emphasized the importance of the guideline, noting that the 5-year survival among rheumatic disease patients who develop certain perioperative complications is lower than for many common cancers, and that the literature offers little guidance on managing medications in the perioperative period.
“We now have a document that’s based on the available evidence, and also based on expert opinion, to help us manage these patients much more thoroughly in the perioperative period,” Dr. Springer, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., said during a press briefing on the guideline.
Dr. Springer highlighted the value of the unique collaboration between the ACR and the AAHKS, calling the effort a win both for patients, and for “collaborative efforts, collaborative research, which we just really don’t do enough of,” he said. “I hope this is a huge step towards that direction.”
This guideline development process was funded by the ACR and AAHKS.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
WASHINGTON – Biologic agents should be stopped prior to elective total knee or hip arthroplasty in patients with rheumatic diseases, according to a draft guideline developed by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.
The guideline, which address the perioperative management of antirheumatic medications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), or lupus who are undergoing such surgery, is currently under review, Dr. Susan Goodman, MD, coprincipal investigator, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
The draft guideline was created because “guidance was needed for common clinical situations, even where data were sparse. We didn’t want to configure treatment mandates – that’s not what these are,” Dr. Goodman of Cornell University, New York, said.
The recommendations are conditional, she said, meaning that the benefits probably outweigh the harms, that the recommendations apply to most but not all patients, and that future research may lead to changes.
“They’re also preference sensitive,” she said, explaining that patients’ values and preferences should be carefully considered, as they might differ from those of the patient panel consulted during guideline development; the panel expressed greater concern about the risk of infection following surgery than about perioperative flares resulting from medication discontinuation.
Based on agreement by at least 80% of a voting panel which considered available evidence in the context of their clinical experience along with the input from the patient panel, the draft guideline states that:
• Current doses of methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine should be continued in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing elective hip and knee replacement. This recommendation is based on an extensive literature review that showed the infection rate is decreased in patients who continue these medications, Dr. Goodman said.
• All biologics should be withheld prior to surgery in patients with inflammatory arthritis, and surgery should be planned for the end of the dosing cycle. This matter wasn’t specifically addressed in the literature; however, numerous randomized controlled trials outside of the surgical setting demonstrate an increased risk of infection associated with their use, she noted.
“All of the biologic medications were found to be associated with an increased risk of infection,” she said. “Because of this and the level of importance patients place on minimizing infection risk, we’ve recommended that biologics be withheld prior to surgery.”
• Tofacitinib, which was considered in a separate oral, targeted therapy category, should be withheld for at least 7 days prior to surgery in patients with RA, spondyloarthritis, and JIA. Data from systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed an increased risk of infection with tofacitinib, although more research is needed in order to “firm up” this recommendation, Dr. Goodman said.
• In lupus patients, rituximab and belimumab should be withheld prior to surgery, and surgery should be planned for the end of the dosing period.
“Again, this was not answered in the literature. We depended on observational studies that we reviewed that did show that patients with severe active lupus were at much higher risk for adverse events. But since rituximab isn’t approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for use in lupus, and belimumab isn’t approved for use in severe lupus – and those seem to be the high-risk patients – we thought withholding them was more prudent,” she said.
• Patients with severe lupus should continue on current doses of methotrexate, mycophenolic acid, azathioprine, mizoribine, cyclosporine, and tacrolimus through surgery. This recommendation is based on indirect data from experience in organ transplant patients.
• All medications should be discontinued in patients whose lupus is not severe.
“Our recommendation is to withhold for 7 days to 2-5 days after surgery in the absence of any wound healing complications or any other complications,” she said, noting that the literature does not directly address this; the recommendation is based on indirect evidence in patients with either active infection or who are at risk for infection.
“We thought that careful monitoring of the patient would permit us to identify flare and intervene quickly. … and that, for mild cases of lupus, the morbidity associated with infection might not be greater than the morbidity associated with the disease flare,” she said.
• Biologics should be restarted once surgical wounds show evidence of healing and there is no clinical evidence of infection. The literature does not directly address this; the recommendation is based on the rationale for use of these medications in patients with either active infection or risk for infection.
• Current daily doses of glucocorticoids, rather than supraphysiologic doses, should be continued in adults with RA, lupus, or inflammatory arthritis. A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trial data and observational data showed no hemodynamic difference between daily doses and stress doses.
“In addition, there are abundant observational data demonstrating an increase in infection in patients on chronic steroids greater than 15 mg, and we thought that part of the optimization of the patient would be getting them on the lowest possible steroid dose,” she said, stressing that this refers only to adults receiving glucocorticoids for their rheumatic disease, and not to those with a history of JIA who may have received steroids during development, or to those receiving glucocorticoids for primary, adrenal, or hypothalamic disease.
According to Dr. Goodman, the time is right for the introduction of these recommendations, because the increased use of disease-modifying drugs and biologics means that most patients coming in for these surgeries will be taking these medications.
Further, despite the widespread use of the medications, the rate of total knee and hip arthroplasty surgeries among patients with rheumatic diseases is about the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago – and their risk for devastating complications, including infections, remains high, she said, noting that appropriate medication management provides an opportunity to mitigate risk.
Coprincipal investigator, Bryan Springer, MD, further emphasized the importance of the guideline, noting that the 5-year survival among rheumatic disease patients who develop certain perioperative complications is lower than for many common cancers, and that the literature offers little guidance on managing medications in the perioperative period.
“We now have a document that’s based on the available evidence, and also based on expert opinion, to help us manage these patients much more thoroughly in the perioperative period,” Dr. Springer, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., said during a press briefing on the guideline.
Dr. Springer highlighted the value of the unique collaboration between the ACR and the AAHKS, calling the effort a win both for patients, and for “collaborative efforts, collaborative research, which we just really don’t do enough of,” he said. “I hope this is a huge step towards that direction.”
This guideline development process was funded by the ACR and AAHKS.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT THE ACR ANNUAL MEETING
Study offers reassuring data on certolizumab use in pregnancy
VIENNA – Data from a large prospective registry of pregnancy outcomes in women on certolizumab are reassuring to date, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“This unique dataset of pregnancies exposed to a single agent suggests that exposure is really not a problem, although we’ll continue to collect prospective data and anticipate doing so in women with psoriasis going forward,” said Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Certolizumab is a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor currently approved in the United States for the treatment of Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is now in clinical trials for psoriasis, and Dr. Kimball said she expects that it will eventually receive an indication for that disease as well. In the interim, she switches her psoriasis patients who are pregnant or plan to become so to either off-label certolizumab or etanercept (Enbrel). She does the same for her psoriatic arthritis patients, although in that situation certolizumab is on-label therapy.
The reason she turns to etanercept or certolizumab in pregnancy or anticipated pregnancy is that these two biologics, unlike others, don’t cross the placenta in the third trimester.
“I’m concerned about the selective uptake of other monoclonal antibodies in the third trimester. We do see in babies born to moms exposed to these other drugs – like ustekinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab – that the baby’s drug blood levels at birth are higher than the mom’s, so you have potentially put them at some risk for infections unnecessarily and maybe have affected how their immune system develops. So if a woman comes to me who is pregnant and on a biologic agent I would either stop treatment in the second trimester or switch to etanercept or certolizumab,” the dermatologist said.
Of the 256 pregnancies prospectively followed in the UCB certolizumab registry, 80.9% resulted in live births, and 10.2% ended in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. In addition, the induced abortion rate was 8.6%, and there was a single stillbirth.
Of note, the mean age at pregnancy was 31 years, and 29% of the women became pregnant at age 35 or older. In contrast, the mean age at first pregnancy in the general population is 26, and only about 10% are 35 or older. These data are consistent with Dr. Kimball’s own clinical experience, which is that women with moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis often have trouble conceiving, and if they eventually succeed it’s often at a more advanced age.
The rate of maternal complications in this series was unremarkable: preeclampsia in 3.5%, infection in 3.9%, disease flare in 5.1%, and gestational diabetes in 3.1%. The median gestational age at birth was 39 weeks. The rate of early preterm birth before 32 weeks was 3.5%, with 12.6% of babies arriving at 32-36 weeks. Considering these are older moms being treated for serious underlying systemic inflammatory diseases, these numbers look good, according to Dr. Kimball.
Most women were exposed to certolizumab during the first trimester at least, and many were on the drug throughout pregnancy.
She said about one-third of psoriasis patients experience improvement in their skin diseases during pregnancy.
“If they’re doing really well, I see no reason to keep them on systemic therapy during pregnancy. But I will say that I see a lot of very bad postpartum flares, and I’m quite cautious about that. For the women with psoriatic arthritis there may not be a choice; you may need to continue to treat them all the way through their pregnancy to keep from getting permanent joint destruction,” the dermatologist said.
Dr. Kimball reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to UCB and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.
VIENNA – Data from a large prospective registry of pregnancy outcomes in women on certolizumab are reassuring to date, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“This unique dataset of pregnancies exposed to a single agent suggests that exposure is really not a problem, although we’ll continue to collect prospective data and anticipate doing so in women with psoriasis going forward,” said Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Certolizumab is a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor currently approved in the United States for the treatment of Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is now in clinical trials for psoriasis, and Dr. Kimball said she expects that it will eventually receive an indication for that disease as well. In the interim, she switches her psoriasis patients who are pregnant or plan to become so to either off-label certolizumab or etanercept (Enbrel). She does the same for her psoriatic arthritis patients, although in that situation certolizumab is on-label therapy.
The reason she turns to etanercept or certolizumab in pregnancy or anticipated pregnancy is that these two biologics, unlike others, don’t cross the placenta in the third trimester.
“I’m concerned about the selective uptake of other monoclonal antibodies in the third trimester. We do see in babies born to moms exposed to these other drugs – like ustekinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab – that the baby’s drug blood levels at birth are higher than the mom’s, so you have potentially put them at some risk for infections unnecessarily and maybe have affected how their immune system develops. So if a woman comes to me who is pregnant and on a biologic agent I would either stop treatment in the second trimester or switch to etanercept or certolizumab,” the dermatologist said.
Of the 256 pregnancies prospectively followed in the UCB certolizumab registry, 80.9% resulted in live births, and 10.2% ended in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. In addition, the induced abortion rate was 8.6%, and there was a single stillbirth.
Of note, the mean age at pregnancy was 31 years, and 29% of the women became pregnant at age 35 or older. In contrast, the mean age at first pregnancy in the general population is 26, and only about 10% are 35 or older. These data are consistent with Dr. Kimball’s own clinical experience, which is that women with moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis often have trouble conceiving, and if they eventually succeed it’s often at a more advanced age.
The rate of maternal complications in this series was unremarkable: preeclampsia in 3.5%, infection in 3.9%, disease flare in 5.1%, and gestational diabetes in 3.1%. The median gestational age at birth was 39 weeks. The rate of early preterm birth before 32 weeks was 3.5%, with 12.6% of babies arriving at 32-36 weeks. Considering these are older moms being treated for serious underlying systemic inflammatory diseases, these numbers look good, according to Dr. Kimball.
Most women were exposed to certolizumab during the first trimester at least, and many were on the drug throughout pregnancy.
She said about one-third of psoriasis patients experience improvement in their skin diseases during pregnancy.
“If they’re doing really well, I see no reason to keep them on systemic therapy during pregnancy. But I will say that I see a lot of very bad postpartum flares, and I’m quite cautious about that. For the women with psoriatic arthritis there may not be a choice; you may need to continue to treat them all the way through their pregnancy to keep from getting permanent joint destruction,” the dermatologist said.
Dr. Kimball reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to UCB and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.
VIENNA – Data from a large prospective registry of pregnancy outcomes in women on certolizumab are reassuring to date, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“This unique dataset of pregnancies exposed to a single agent suggests that exposure is really not a problem, although we’ll continue to collect prospective data and anticipate doing so in women with psoriasis going forward,” said Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Certolizumab is a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor currently approved in the United States for the treatment of Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is now in clinical trials for psoriasis, and Dr. Kimball said she expects that it will eventually receive an indication for that disease as well. In the interim, she switches her psoriasis patients who are pregnant or plan to become so to either off-label certolizumab or etanercept (Enbrel). She does the same for her psoriatic arthritis patients, although in that situation certolizumab is on-label therapy.
The reason she turns to etanercept or certolizumab in pregnancy or anticipated pregnancy is that these two biologics, unlike others, don’t cross the placenta in the third trimester.
“I’m concerned about the selective uptake of other monoclonal antibodies in the third trimester. We do see in babies born to moms exposed to these other drugs – like ustekinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab – that the baby’s drug blood levels at birth are higher than the mom’s, so you have potentially put them at some risk for infections unnecessarily and maybe have affected how their immune system develops. So if a woman comes to me who is pregnant and on a biologic agent I would either stop treatment in the second trimester or switch to etanercept or certolizumab,” the dermatologist said.
Of the 256 pregnancies prospectively followed in the UCB certolizumab registry, 80.9% resulted in live births, and 10.2% ended in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. In addition, the induced abortion rate was 8.6%, and there was a single stillbirth.
Of note, the mean age at pregnancy was 31 years, and 29% of the women became pregnant at age 35 or older. In contrast, the mean age at first pregnancy in the general population is 26, and only about 10% are 35 or older. These data are consistent with Dr. Kimball’s own clinical experience, which is that women with moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis often have trouble conceiving, and if they eventually succeed it’s often at a more advanced age.
The rate of maternal complications in this series was unremarkable: preeclampsia in 3.5%, infection in 3.9%, disease flare in 5.1%, and gestational diabetes in 3.1%. The median gestational age at birth was 39 weeks. The rate of early preterm birth before 32 weeks was 3.5%, with 12.6% of babies arriving at 32-36 weeks. Considering these are older moms being treated for serious underlying systemic inflammatory diseases, these numbers look good, according to Dr. Kimball.
Most women were exposed to certolizumab during the first trimester at least, and many were on the drug throughout pregnancy.
She said about one-third of psoriasis patients experience improvement in their skin diseases during pregnancy.
“If they’re doing really well, I see no reason to keep them on systemic therapy during pregnancy. But I will say that I see a lot of very bad postpartum flares, and I’m quite cautious about that. For the women with psoriatic arthritis there may not be a choice; you may need to continue to treat them all the way through their pregnancy to keep from getting permanent joint destruction,” the dermatologist said.
Dr. Kimball reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to UCB and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The rate of major congenital malformations in a large prospective series of pregnancies in women on certolizumab was reassuringly low at 4.2%, with no pattern of malformations being seen.
Data source: This was a report on maternal and fetal outcomes of 256 prospectively followed pregnancies in women on certolizumab.
Disclosures: The presenter reported receiving research funds from and serving as a consultant to UCB, which markets certolizumab and maintains the pregnancy registry.
What good are biosimilars if patients won’t use them?
BOSTON – Biosimilar versions of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have arrived in the United States, but even the best, most efficacious drugs are worthless if patients don’t want to take them.
“The science is important, the medicine is important, but at the end of the day, acceptance and use is what’s going to measure success,” said Seth D. Ginsberg, at a biosimilars symposium sponsored by Corrona, a business that provides registry data and consulting services to biopharmaceutical companies.
He illustrated the value of biologic agents with this anecdote: “When we got started long, long ago, we used to hold patient events,” he said “and we usually set up for 100. The instructions to meeting planners were right before the event that it was protocol to pull the front 25, the front-right quarter of chairs. Why? To make room for those who can’t walk, to make room for the wheelchairs,” he said.
“Today, if we have one wheelchair at an event, it’s an outlier, and I can’t think of a better way to summarize the impact that biologics have had on our lives,” he said.
Biosimilar confidence
His group has launched “Operation: Biosimilar Confidence” which is designed to educate patients and physicians about the clinical value and scientific underpinnings of biosimilars, as well as the thorough development, review, and regulatory processes involved.
The goal of the project is to instill confidence in patients by helping them to understand the manufacturer’s safety track record, reliability of the biosimilar supply chain, and the availability to them of support services, if they make the switch to a biosimilar.
“Generics don’t have equivalent patient-support programs, and the projection is theoretically that [biosimilar] manufacturers won’t either. We will not accept that. We are going to do everything we can for those patients, to advocate for the continuation of the support programs that we rely on as patients,” he said.
Patient concerns
Surveys of patient concerns about biosimilars have highlighted four key areas:
- What is the manufacturer’s overall safety record in both biologic agents and small-molecule therapies?
- Supply-chain logistic – Will the manufacturer commit to consistent production and supply?
- Will biosimilar manufacturers provide patient support at levels equal to those offered by innovator biologic makers, and what kind of support will be available – phone, websites, social media, copays, etc.?
- Payer ethics – Will payers offer lower copays, deductibles, or premiums, and are payers as concerned as patients about product safety, supply chain, and support?
The implementation strategy for the campaign will focus on speaking directly to patients through CreakyJoints.org, partner Global Healthy Living Foundation, patient and physician organizations, social and conventional media, advertising, and one-on-one encounters.
“We have to talk directly and indirectly to employers and employee-advocacy groups. We have to let these big self-insured employers understand what the perspective of the patient is and what life is like thanks to these medicine, and why biosimilars are a critical component to the success of living with these conditions,” he said.
Advocates also have to work with the media to create “a surround-sound message that reaches all audiences with additional frequency.”
“We cannot allow Wall Street Journal business analysts to dictate the conversations about biosimilars. Why? They’re looking at one thing, and only one thing, and they’re ignoring the patient perspective,” Ginsberg said.
Lastly, patient groups need to work closely with payers, physician groups, and manufacturers to ensure that biosimilars can be smoothly integrated into the healthcare system, he emphasized.
“I want to be crystal clear here: We can’t wait for biosimilars. Bring it on! We want them,” he said.
BOSTON – Biosimilar versions of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have arrived in the United States, but even the best, most efficacious drugs are worthless if patients don’t want to take them.
“The science is important, the medicine is important, but at the end of the day, acceptance and use is what’s going to measure success,” said Seth D. Ginsberg, at a biosimilars symposium sponsored by Corrona, a business that provides registry data and consulting services to biopharmaceutical companies.
He illustrated the value of biologic agents with this anecdote: “When we got started long, long ago, we used to hold patient events,” he said “and we usually set up for 100. The instructions to meeting planners were right before the event that it was protocol to pull the front 25, the front-right quarter of chairs. Why? To make room for those who can’t walk, to make room for the wheelchairs,” he said.
“Today, if we have one wheelchair at an event, it’s an outlier, and I can’t think of a better way to summarize the impact that biologics have had on our lives,” he said.
Biosimilar confidence
His group has launched “Operation: Biosimilar Confidence” which is designed to educate patients and physicians about the clinical value and scientific underpinnings of biosimilars, as well as the thorough development, review, and regulatory processes involved.
The goal of the project is to instill confidence in patients by helping them to understand the manufacturer’s safety track record, reliability of the biosimilar supply chain, and the availability to them of support services, if they make the switch to a biosimilar.
“Generics don’t have equivalent patient-support programs, and the projection is theoretically that [biosimilar] manufacturers won’t either. We will not accept that. We are going to do everything we can for those patients, to advocate for the continuation of the support programs that we rely on as patients,” he said.
Patient concerns
Surveys of patient concerns about biosimilars have highlighted four key areas:
- What is the manufacturer’s overall safety record in both biologic agents and small-molecule therapies?
- Supply-chain logistic – Will the manufacturer commit to consistent production and supply?
- Will biosimilar manufacturers provide patient support at levels equal to those offered by innovator biologic makers, and what kind of support will be available – phone, websites, social media, copays, etc.?
- Payer ethics – Will payers offer lower copays, deductibles, or premiums, and are payers as concerned as patients about product safety, supply chain, and support?
The implementation strategy for the campaign will focus on speaking directly to patients through CreakyJoints.org, partner Global Healthy Living Foundation, patient and physician organizations, social and conventional media, advertising, and one-on-one encounters.
“We have to talk directly and indirectly to employers and employee-advocacy groups. We have to let these big self-insured employers understand what the perspective of the patient is and what life is like thanks to these medicine, and why biosimilars are a critical component to the success of living with these conditions,” he said.
Advocates also have to work with the media to create “a surround-sound message that reaches all audiences with additional frequency.”
“We cannot allow Wall Street Journal business analysts to dictate the conversations about biosimilars. Why? They’re looking at one thing, and only one thing, and they’re ignoring the patient perspective,” Ginsberg said.
Lastly, patient groups need to work closely with payers, physician groups, and manufacturers to ensure that biosimilars can be smoothly integrated into the healthcare system, he emphasized.
“I want to be crystal clear here: We can’t wait for biosimilars. Bring it on! We want them,” he said.
BOSTON – Biosimilar versions of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have arrived in the United States, but even the best, most efficacious drugs are worthless if patients don’t want to take them.
“The science is important, the medicine is important, but at the end of the day, acceptance and use is what’s going to measure success,” said Seth D. Ginsberg, at a biosimilars symposium sponsored by Corrona, a business that provides registry data and consulting services to biopharmaceutical companies.
He illustrated the value of biologic agents with this anecdote: “When we got started long, long ago, we used to hold patient events,” he said “and we usually set up for 100. The instructions to meeting planners were right before the event that it was protocol to pull the front 25, the front-right quarter of chairs. Why? To make room for those who can’t walk, to make room for the wheelchairs,” he said.
“Today, if we have one wheelchair at an event, it’s an outlier, and I can’t think of a better way to summarize the impact that biologics have had on our lives,” he said.
Biosimilar confidence
His group has launched “Operation: Biosimilar Confidence” which is designed to educate patients and physicians about the clinical value and scientific underpinnings of biosimilars, as well as the thorough development, review, and regulatory processes involved.
The goal of the project is to instill confidence in patients by helping them to understand the manufacturer’s safety track record, reliability of the biosimilar supply chain, and the availability to them of support services, if they make the switch to a biosimilar.
“Generics don’t have equivalent patient-support programs, and the projection is theoretically that [biosimilar] manufacturers won’t either. We will not accept that. We are going to do everything we can for those patients, to advocate for the continuation of the support programs that we rely on as patients,” he said.
Patient concerns
Surveys of patient concerns about biosimilars have highlighted four key areas:
- What is the manufacturer’s overall safety record in both biologic agents and small-molecule therapies?
- Supply-chain logistic – Will the manufacturer commit to consistent production and supply?
- Will biosimilar manufacturers provide patient support at levels equal to those offered by innovator biologic makers, and what kind of support will be available – phone, websites, social media, copays, etc.?
- Payer ethics – Will payers offer lower copays, deductibles, or premiums, and are payers as concerned as patients about product safety, supply chain, and support?
The implementation strategy for the campaign will focus on speaking directly to patients through CreakyJoints.org, partner Global Healthy Living Foundation, patient and physician organizations, social and conventional media, advertising, and one-on-one encounters.
“We have to talk directly and indirectly to employers and employee-advocacy groups. We have to let these big self-insured employers understand what the perspective of the patient is and what life is like thanks to these medicine, and why biosimilars are a critical component to the success of living with these conditions,” he said.
Advocates also have to work with the media to create “a surround-sound message that reaches all audiences with additional frequency.”
“We cannot allow Wall Street Journal business analysts to dictate the conversations about biosimilars. Why? They’re looking at one thing, and only one thing, and they’re ignoring the patient perspective,” Ginsberg said.
Lastly, patient groups need to work closely with payers, physician groups, and manufacturers to ensure that biosimilars can be smoothly integrated into the healthcare system, he emphasized.
“I want to be crystal clear here: We can’t wait for biosimilars. Bring it on! We want them,” he said.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM A BIOSIMILARS IN RHEUMATOLOGY SYMPOSIUM
FDA’s Woodcock: Give biosimilars a chance
BOSTON – Biosimilar drugs are not identical twins of original biologic agents, but there are very strong family ties, and the newcomer is expected to look and behave very much like its older relative, said Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.
Although biosimilars differ from generic, small-molecule drugs, concerns about the development of biosimilars mirrors the kerfuffle over generic drugs surrounding the passage of the Hatch-Waxman (Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration) Act in 1984.
She noted that clinicians today are asking the same questions about biosimilars that were asked about generics three decades ago:
- Are biosimilars as effective and as safe as the originally licensed biopharmaceuticals?
- If pharmacists substitute biosimilars for prescribed biologics, will patients be adversely affected?
- Can biosimilars reduce the high cost of biologic therapy?
“In certain specialties, this skepticism has persisted to this very day,” she said.
ACA mandate
Biosimilars owe their existence in large measure to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI), passed as a part of the Affordable Care Act and signed into law by President Obama in 2010.
The act created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biologic products that can be shown to be either biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference drug.
A biosimilar is defined as a biological product that is highly similar to the reference product “notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components,” and with no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product in terms of purity, safety, and potency.
To be interchangeable, a biosimilar must be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference drug in any given patient, and “for a product that is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the product and its reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.”
The definition of interchangeability includes the understanding that the prescriber’s approval is not necessary for substitution of a biosimilar for its reference product.
“If we’re going to have that kind of switching, if they are going to be interchangeable, then we have to have a very high bar,” Dr. Woodcock said.
She added that “any pressure people are feeling to push their patients to biosimilars is from the reimbursement system. There is no non-prescriber switching allowed currently; however, that doesn’t say there isn’t pressure on prescribers to write a different prescription.”
Faster track and bridge to approval
The biosimilar development and approval requires only convincing demonstration of biosimilarity to an existing agent, rather than an independent finding of safety or effectiveness, and the purpose of clinical studies in this case is to address “residual uncertainties,” Dr. Woodcock said.
Drug developers and regulatory authorities alike “are having trouble getting their mind around this concept,” she said.
The FDA requires manufacturers to provide data in their biosimilar drug license applications demonstrating biosimilarity based on analytical studies, animal studies that include toxicity assessments, and one or more clinical studies that include information on immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) or pharmacodynamics (PD) that is sufficient to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the candidate biosimilar.
The FDA is also allowing manufacturers to submit data from animal studies and specified clinical studies comparing a proposed biosimilar product with a product not licensed in the United States, “as long as we are convinced that the reference product is equivalent to the U.S. product,” Dr. Woodcock said.
This “analytical bridge” process was requested by manufacturers who began development of biosimilars in Europe. The European Medicines Agency approved a biosimilar process in 2005, and gave the nod to the first biosimilar agents to existing erythropoietin products in 2007.
Current and pending
As of early October 2016, 66 programs were enrolled in FDA’s Biosimilar Product Development Program, and CDER has received requests for meetings with manufacturers to discuss what tests and documents are required for the development of biosimilars to 20 different reference products.
The FDA is prohibited from publicly discussing the existence of a pending application unless it has been previously disclosed or acknowledged publicly with the manufacturer’s permission, Dr. Woodcock noted, but as of Oct. 10, 2016, seven companies have announced a total of 10 biologic license applications for biosimilars to etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), epoetin alfa (Epogen/Procrit), filgrastim (Neupogen), and infliximab (Remicade).
The FDA has granted licenses to four biosimilars to date (the four-letter suffix is intended to differentiate biosimilars agents from other biosimilars to the same reference product):
- Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz).
- Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb).
- Erelzi (etanercept-szzs).
- Amjevita (adalimumab-atto).
Physician perspective
“Everything I have heard suggests that biosimilars will be useful, but the scientist in me is a skeptic,” commented Donald Massenburg, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare in Franklin, Wisc., in an interview.
“I feel better now after learning that current biosimilars are not considered interchangeable, meaning that there can’t be substitutions made without the treating physician’s consent,” he said.
He acknowledged that “I wouldn’t be that excited” if a specific biosimilar was approved for interchangeability and was given to his patients without his knowledge.
Dr. Massenburg pointed to data from the NOR-SWITCH trial comparing the biosimilar Remsima to the reference product Remicade for treatment of rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease. The trial showed that Remsima was noninferior to the reference product.
“I would like to be able to say whether a patient should be switched to a biosimilar or not just because of that potential risk,” Dr. Massenburg said.
A rheumatologist in private practice in New England said that what’s really needed in rheumatology is not the availability of more drugs that act like other drugs, but innovative research into therapies with better targeted mechanism of action.
“We’ve been through the ‘me-too’ hype; we did that with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” said J. Scott Toder, MD, director of the Toder Rheumatology and Osteoporosis Center, Providence, R.I.
“I think we need to concentrate on innovative therapies, and we may be able to do something about the escalating price of the biologics on the market by creating drugs with new mechanism of action to actually increase competition and hopefully control prices. I don’t think that having multiple drugs with the same mechanism of action is in the best interest of our patients,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Woodcock, Dr. Massenburg, and Dr. Toder reported having no relevant disclosures.
BOSTON – Biosimilar drugs are not identical twins of original biologic agents, but there are very strong family ties, and the newcomer is expected to look and behave very much like its older relative, said Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.
Although biosimilars differ from generic, small-molecule drugs, concerns about the development of biosimilars mirrors the kerfuffle over generic drugs surrounding the passage of the Hatch-Waxman (Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration) Act in 1984.
She noted that clinicians today are asking the same questions about biosimilars that were asked about generics three decades ago:
- Are biosimilars as effective and as safe as the originally licensed biopharmaceuticals?
- If pharmacists substitute biosimilars for prescribed biologics, will patients be adversely affected?
- Can biosimilars reduce the high cost of biologic therapy?
“In certain specialties, this skepticism has persisted to this very day,” she said.
ACA mandate
Biosimilars owe their existence in large measure to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI), passed as a part of the Affordable Care Act and signed into law by President Obama in 2010.
The act created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biologic products that can be shown to be either biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference drug.
A biosimilar is defined as a biological product that is highly similar to the reference product “notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components,” and with no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product in terms of purity, safety, and potency.
To be interchangeable, a biosimilar must be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference drug in any given patient, and “for a product that is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the product and its reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.”
The definition of interchangeability includes the understanding that the prescriber’s approval is not necessary for substitution of a biosimilar for its reference product.
“If we’re going to have that kind of switching, if they are going to be interchangeable, then we have to have a very high bar,” Dr. Woodcock said.
She added that “any pressure people are feeling to push their patients to biosimilars is from the reimbursement system. There is no non-prescriber switching allowed currently; however, that doesn’t say there isn’t pressure on prescribers to write a different prescription.”
Faster track and bridge to approval
The biosimilar development and approval requires only convincing demonstration of biosimilarity to an existing agent, rather than an independent finding of safety or effectiveness, and the purpose of clinical studies in this case is to address “residual uncertainties,” Dr. Woodcock said.
Drug developers and regulatory authorities alike “are having trouble getting their mind around this concept,” she said.
The FDA requires manufacturers to provide data in their biosimilar drug license applications demonstrating biosimilarity based on analytical studies, animal studies that include toxicity assessments, and one or more clinical studies that include information on immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) or pharmacodynamics (PD) that is sufficient to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the candidate biosimilar.
The FDA is also allowing manufacturers to submit data from animal studies and specified clinical studies comparing a proposed biosimilar product with a product not licensed in the United States, “as long as we are convinced that the reference product is equivalent to the U.S. product,” Dr. Woodcock said.
This “analytical bridge” process was requested by manufacturers who began development of biosimilars in Europe. The European Medicines Agency approved a biosimilar process in 2005, and gave the nod to the first biosimilar agents to existing erythropoietin products in 2007.
Current and pending
As of early October 2016, 66 programs were enrolled in FDA’s Biosimilar Product Development Program, and CDER has received requests for meetings with manufacturers to discuss what tests and documents are required for the development of biosimilars to 20 different reference products.
The FDA is prohibited from publicly discussing the existence of a pending application unless it has been previously disclosed or acknowledged publicly with the manufacturer’s permission, Dr. Woodcock noted, but as of Oct. 10, 2016, seven companies have announced a total of 10 biologic license applications for biosimilars to etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), epoetin alfa (Epogen/Procrit), filgrastim (Neupogen), and infliximab (Remicade).
The FDA has granted licenses to four biosimilars to date (the four-letter suffix is intended to differentiate biosimilars agents from other biosimilars to the same reference product):
- Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz).
- Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb).
- Erelzi (etanercept-szzs).
- Amjevita (adalimumab-atto).
Physician perspective
“Everything I have heard suggests that biosimilars will be useful, but the scientist in me is a skeptic,” commented Donald Massenburg, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare in Franklin, Wisc., in an interview.
“I feel better now after learning that current biosimilars are not considered interchangeable, meaning that there can’t be substitutions made without the treating physician’s consent,” he said.
He acknowledged that “I wouldn’t be that excited” if a specific biosimilar was approved for interchangeability and was given to his patients without his knowledge.
Dr. Massenburg pointed to data from the NOR-SWITCH trial comparing the biosimilar Remsima to the reference product Remicade for treatment of rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease. The trial showed that Remsima was noninferior to the reference product.
“I would like to be able to say whether a patient should be switched to a biosimilar or not just because of that potential risk,” Dr. Massenburg said.
A rheumatologist in private practice in New England said that what’s really needed in rheumatology is not the availability of more drugs that act like other drugs, but innovative research into therapies with better targeted mechanism of action.
“We’ve been through the ‘me-too’ hype; we did that with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” said J. Scott Toder, MD, director of the Toder Rheumatology and Osteoporosis Center, Providence, R.I.
“I think we need to concentrate on innovative therapies, and we may be able to do something about the escalating price of the biologics on the market by creating drugs with new mechanism of action to actually increase competition and hopefully control prices. I don’t think that having multiple drugs with the same mechanism of action is in the best interest of our patients,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Woodcock, Dr. Massenburg, and Dr. Toder reported having no relevant disclosures.
BOSTON – Biosimilar drugs are not identical twins of original biologic agents, but there are very strong family ties, and the newcomer is expected to look and behave very much like its older relative, said Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.
Although biosimilars differ from generic, small-molecule drugs, concerns about the development of biosimilars mirrors the kerfuffle over generic drugs surrounding the passage of the Hatch-Waxman (Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration) Act in 1984.
She noted that clinicians today are asking the same questions about biosimilars that were asked about generics three decades ago:
- Are biosimilars as effective and as safe as the originally licensed biopharmaceuticals?
- If pharmacists substitute biosimilars for prescribed biologics, will patients be adversely affected?
- Can biosimilars reduce the high cost of biologic therapy?
“In certain specialties, this skepticism has persisted to this very day,” she said.
ACA mandate
Biosimilars owe their existence in large measure to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI), passed as a part of the Affordable Care Act and signed into law by President Obama in 2010.
The act created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biologic products that can be shown to be either biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference drug.
A biosimilar is defined as a biological product that is highly similar to the reference product “notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components,” and with no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product in terms of purity, safety, and potency.
To be interchangeable, a biosimilar must be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference drug in any given patient, and “for a product that is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the product and its reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.”
The definition of interchangeability includes the understanding that the prescriber’s approval is not necessary for substitution of a biosimilar for its reference product.
“If we’re going to have that kind of switching, if they are going to be interchangeable, then we have to have a very high bar,” Dr. Woodcock said.
She added that “any pressure people are feeling to push their patients to biosimilars is from the reimbursement system. There is no non-prescriber switching allowed currently; however, that doesn’t say there isn’t pressure on prescribers to write a different prescription.”
Faster track and bridge to approval
The biosimilar development and approval requires only convincing demonstration of biosimilarity to an existing agent, rather than an independent finding of safety or effectiveness, and the purpose of clinical studies in this case is to address “residual uncertainties,” Dr. Woodcock said.
Drug developers and regulatory authorities alike “are having trouble getting their mind around this concept,” she said.
The FDA requires manufacturers to provide data in their biosimilar drug license applications demonstrating biosimilarity based on analytical studies, animal studies that include toxicity assessments, and one or more clinical studies that include information on immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) or pharmacodynamics (PD) that is sufficient to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the candidate biosimilar.
The FDA is also allowing manufacturers to submit data from animal studies and specified clinical studies comparing a proposed biosimilar product with a product not licensed in the United States, “as long as we are convinced that the reference product is equivalent to the U.S. product,” Dr. Woodcock said.
This “analytical bridge” process was requested by manufacturers who began development of biosimilars in Europe. The European Medicines Agency approved a biosimilar process in 2005, and gave the nod to the first biosimilar agents to existing erythropoietin products in 2007.
Current and pending
As of early October 2016, 66 programs were enrolled in FDA’s Biosimilar Product Development Program, and CDER has received requests for meetings with manufacturers to discuss what tests and documents are required for the development of biosimilars to 20 different reference products.
The FDA is prohibited from publicly discussing the existence of a pending application unless it has been previously disclosed or acknowledged publicly with the manufacturer’s permission, Dr. Woodcock noted, but as of Oct. 10, 2016, seven companies have announced a total of 10 biologic license applications for biosimilars to etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), epoetin alfa (Epogen/Procrit), filgrastim (Neupogen), and infliximab (Remicade).
The FDA has granted licenses to four biosimilars to date (the four-letter suffix is intended to differentiate biosimilars agents from other biosimilars to the same reference product):
- Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz).
- Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb).
- Erelzi (etanercept-szzs).
- Amjevita (adalimumab-atto).
Physician perspective
“Everything I have heard suggests that biosimilars will be useful, but the scientist in me is a skeptic,” commented Donald Massenburg, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare in Franklin, Wisc., in an interview.
“I feel better now after learning that current biosimilars are not considered interchangeable, meaning that there can’t be substitutions made without the treating physician’s consent,” he said.
He acknowledged that “I wouldn’t be that excited” if a specific biosimilar was approved for interchangeability and was given to his patients without his knowledge.
Dr. Massenburg pointed to data from the NOR-SWITCH trial comparing the biosimilar Remsima to the reference product Remicade for treatment of rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease. The trial showed that Remsima was noninferior to the reference product.
“I would like to be able to say whether a patient should be switched to a biosimilar or not just because of that potential risk,” Dr. Massenburg said.
A rheumatologist in private practice in New England said that what’s really needed in rheumatology is not the availability of more drugs that act like other drugs, but innovative research into therapies with better targeted mechanism of action.
“We’ve been through the ‘me-too’ hype; we did that with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” said J. Scott Toder, MD, director of the Toder Rheumatology and Osteoporosis Center, Providence, R.I.
“I think we need to concentrate on innovative therapies, and we may be able to do something about the escalating price of the biologics on the market by creating drugs with new mechanism of action to actually increase competition and hopefully control prices. I don’t think that having multiple drugs with the same mechanism of action is in the best interest of our patients,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Woodcock, Dr. Massenburg, and Dr. Toder reported having no relevant disclosures.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM A BIOSIMILARS IN RHEUMATOLOGY SYMPOSIUM
ACR 2016 continues big buffet of basic and clinical science sessions
This year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology will feature cutting-edge research and results of studies that directly affect how attendees will manage patients once they are back in the clinical setting, according to both Richard Loeser, MD, program chair of the Annual Meeting Planning Committee (AMPC), and Gregory Gardner, MD, clinical subchair of the AMPC, who suggested special sessions of interest culled from the more than 450 sessions to be presented.
“It is an exciting time in rheumatology. Basic research is being translated into new therapies before our very eyes. Areas on the program this year that have translational potential include immunometabolism, blocking interleukin-1 (IL-1), T-cell receptor signaling, and meta-analysis of gene expression data. The meeting will also feature trials that refine and advance the management of rheumatologic diseases, including results on studies of new biologics,” Dr. Loeser said.
Hot sessions
Luke O’Neill, MD, will talk about immunometabolism Monday at 7:30 a.m. This session will explore a newly described connection between energy metabolism and the immune system and the link with inflammation.
Charles Dinarello, MD, will give the Philip Hensch Memorial Lecture Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on blocking IL-1 in inflammatory diseases. He will cover a host of diseases from gout to cancer, Dr. Loeser noted.
Another hot topic, T-cell receptor signaling in autoimmune diseases and the development of new therapies, will be discussed by Arthur Weiss, MD, Tuesday morning at 7:30 a.m.
Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., Peter Lipsky, MD, will tackle big data mining, presenting a meta-analysis of gene expression datasets to identify novel pathways and targets in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“SLE lags behind rheumatoid arthritis in therapeutic advances. A number of trials of biologics have failed in SLE, whereas they have been found effective in rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Clinical slant
Sunday’s Plenary session at 11:00 a.m. will feature several top-rated abstracts, among them results of a phase III study on tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis to be presented by John Stone, MD. “Tocilizumab is a major breakthrough as a steroid-sparing treatment for the most common form of vasculitis that affects older adults,” Dr. Loeser said.
At 2:30 p.m. on Sunday at The Great Debate, Paul Emery, MD, and Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, will tackle the very important clinical topic of “To Taper or Not to Taper? – Biologic DMARDs in Low Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.”
“People aren’t sure what to do. The fear with tapering is rebound, with the disease coming back even more forcefully. There is new evidence to suggest that tapering may be safe under certain circumstances. This session should inform attendees on how to make the decision to taper and on the best way to do it,” Dr. Loeser commented.
The Late-Breaking Abstract session on Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. will feature six clinical trials. Dr. Loeser singled out a study to be presented by Elaine Husni, MD, on “Vascular Safety of Celecoxib versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen” in more than 20,000 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.
“The fear is that COX-2 inhibitors have increased cardiovascular risk. The data from this study that will be presented at the meeting should answer the question of whether or not this is true in patients with arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. Candida Fratazzi, MD, will talk about “Emerging Biosimilars in Therapeutic Management,” a subject of great interest since they have the potential to be equally effective and less expensive than current biologics.
Two “bookends” of the meeting will frame the opening and closing. Sunday at 7:30 a.m., the “Year in Review” session will feature the best published studies on rheumatologic diseases from the past year, based on the judgment of two experts. Ingrid Lundberg, MD, will present the best clinical studies and Bruce Cronstein, MD, will present the best basic science studies. Wednesday at 7:30 a.m., John Cush, MD, and Dr. Kavanaugh will present the “Rheumatology Roundup” of the best abstracts and put them into context. “This session is usually quite entertaining,” Dr. Loeser said.
More sessions of clinical import
“In keeping with our meeting theme of fine-tuning our care of patients with rheumatic disease, I want to point out several sessions,” Dr. Gardner said.
Attendees interested in sessions on clinical applicability will have to choose between two different sessions Monday at 4:30 p.m.: one on dermatomyositis, a relatively rare but difficult-to-treat entity, and the other about treatment of the patient with rheumatoid arthritis when the patient is not well and suffering from comorbidities.
Monday at 8:30 a.m., an “Osteoporosis Update” will give listeners perspective on current and future therapies.
Sunday at 2:30 p.m., new guidelines for steroid-induced osteoporosis will be presented.
“Four or five sessions on the Tech Track will show rheumatologists how they can improve their practice by using technology,” Dr. Gardner said. “Several high-quality sessions are important to educators, including ‘Flipped Classroom, Technology, and Reflection’ [Monday at 12:30 p.m.] and ‘Year in Review’ [Sunday at 1:00 p.m.].”
Monday at 11:00 a.m., the Plenary session will feature Workforce Study results on how many rheumatologists will be needed in the year 2030, and in which geographic locations. This session will also include a discussion of the impact of part-time rheumatologists.
“Two sessions I am excited about are ‘Treat to Target in 2016,’ Tuesday at 4:30 p.m., and ‘Rheumatic Diseases in Native Americans,’ Sunday at 11:00 a.m.,” Dr. Gardner noted. “Concurrent abstract sessions throughout the meeting will feature discussions on new biologics, small molecules, and gene therapy.”
This year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology will feature cutting-edge research and results of studies that directly affect how attendees will manage patients once they are back in the clinical setting, according to both Richard Loeser, MD, program chair of the Annual Meeting Planning Committee (AMPC), and Gregory Gardner, MD, clinical subchair of the AMPC, who suggested special sessions of interest culled from the more than 450 sessions to be presented.
“It is an exciting time in rheumatology. Basic research is being translated into new therapies before our very eyes. Areas on the program this year that have translational potential include immunometabolism, blocking interleukin-1 (IL-1), T-cell receptor signaling, and meta-analysis of gene expression data. The meeting will also feature trials that refine and advance the management of rheumatologic diseases, including results on studies of new biologics,” Dr. Loeser said.
Hot sessions
Luke O’Neill, MD, will talk about immunometabolism Monday at 7:30 a.m. This session will explore a newly described connection between energy metabolism and the immune system and the link with inflammation.
Charles Dinarello, MD, will give the Philip Hensch Memorial Lecture Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on blocking IL-1 in inflammatory diseases. He will cover a host of diseases from gout to cancer, Dr. Loeser noted.
Another hot topic, T-cell receptor signaling in autoimmune diseases and the development of new therapies, will be discussed by Arthur Weiss, MD, Tuesday morning at 7:30 a.m.
Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., Peter Lipsky, MD, will tackle big data mining, presenting a meta-analysis of gene expression datasets to identify novel pathways and targets in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“SLE lags behind rheumatoid arthritis in therapeutic advances. A number of trials of biologics have failed in SLE, whereas they have been found effective in rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Clinical slant
Sunday’s Plenary session at 11:00 a.m. will feature several top-rated abstracts, among them results of a phase III study on tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis to be presented by John Stone, MD. “Tocilizumab is a major breakthrough as a steroid-sparing treatment for the most common form of vasculitis that affects older adults,” Dr. Loeser said.
At 2:30 p.m. on Sunday at The Great Debate, Paul Emery, MD, and Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, will tackle the very important clinical topic of “To Taper or Not to Taper? – Biologic DMARDs in Low Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.”
“People aren’t sure what to do. The fear with tapering is rebound, with the disease coming back even more forcefully. There is new evidence to suggest that tapering may be safe under certain circumstances. This session should inform attendees on how to make the decision to taper and on the best way to do it,” Dr. Loeser commented.
The Late-Breaking Abstract session on Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. will feature six clinical trials. Dr. Loeser singled out a study to be presented by Elaine Husni, MD, on “Vascular Safety of Celecoxib versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen” in more than 20,000 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.
“The fear is that COX-2 inhibitors have increased cardiovascular risk. The data from this study that will be presented at the meeting should answer the question of whether or not this is true in patients with arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. Candida Fratazzi, MD, will talk about “Emerging Biosimilars in Therapeutic Management,” a subject of great interest since they have the potential to be equally effective and less expensive than current biologics.
Two “bookends” of the meeting will frame the opening and closing. Sunday at 7:30 a.m., the “Year in Review” session will feature the best published studies on rheumatologic diseases from the past year, based on the judgment of two experts. Ingrid Lundberg, MD, will present the best clinical studies and Bruce Cronstein, MD, will present the best basic science studies. Wednesday at 7:30 a.m., John Cush, MD, and Dr. Kavanaugh will present the “Rheumatology Roundup” of the best abstracts and put them into context. “This session is usually quite entertaining,” Dr. Loeser said.
More sessions of clinical import
“In keeping with our meeting theme of fine-tuning our care of patients with rheumatic disease, I want to point out several sessions,” Dr. Gardner said.
Attendees interested in sessions on clinical applicability will have to choose between two different sessions Monday at 4:30 p.m.: one on dermatomyositis, a relatively rare but difficult-to-treat entity, and the other about treatment of the patient with rheumatoid arthritis when the patient is not well and suffering from comorbidities.
Monday at 8:30 a.m., an “Osteoporosis Update” will give listeners perspective on current and future therapies.
Sunday at 2:30 p.m., new guidelines for steroid-induced osteoporosis will be presented.
“Four or five sessions on the Tech Track will show rheumatologists how they can improve their practice by using technology,” Dr. Gardner said. “Several high-quality sessions are important to educators, including ‘Flipped Classroom, Technology, and Reflection’ [Monday at 12:30 p.m.] and ‘Year in Review’ [Sunday at 1:00 p.m.].”
Monday at 11:00 a.m., the Plenary session will feature Workforce Study results on how many rheumatologists will be needed in the year 2030, and in which geographic locations. This session will also include a discussion of the impact of part-time rheumatologists.
“Two sessions I am excited about are ‘Treat to Target in 2016,’ Tuesday at 4:30 p.m., and ‘Rheumatic Diseases in Native Americans,’ Sunday at 11:00 a.m.,” Dr. Gardner noted. “Concurrent abstract sessions throughout the meeting will feature discussions on new biologics, small molecules, and gene therapy.”
This year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology will feature cutting-edge research and results of studies that directly affect how attendees will manage patients once they are back in the clinical setting, according to both Richard Loeser, MD, program chair of the Annual Meeting Planning Committee (AMPC), and Gregory Gardner, MD, clinical subchair of the AMPC, who suggested special sessions of interest culled from the more than 450 sessions to be presented.
“It is an exciting time in rheumatology. Basic research is being translated into new therapies before our very eyes. Areas on the program this year that have translational potential include immunometabolism, blocking interleukin-1 (IL-1), T-cell receptor signaling, and meta-analysis of gene expression data. The meeting will also feature trials that refine and advance the management of rheumatologic diseases, including results on studies of new biologics,” Dr. Loeser said.
Hot sessions
Luke O’Neill, MD, will talk about immunometabolism Monday at 7:30 a.m. This session will explore a newly described connection between energy metabolism and the immune system and the link with inflammation.
Charles Dinarello, MD, will give the Philip Hensch Memorial Lecture Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on blocking IL-1 in inflammatory diseases. He will cover a host of diseases from gout to cancer, Dr. Loeser noted.
Another hot topic, T-cell receptor signaling in autoimmune diseases and the development of new therapies, will be discussed by Arthur Weiss, MD, Tuesday morning at 7:30 a.m.
Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., Peter Lipsky, MD, will tackle big data mining, presenting a meta-analysis of gene expression datasets to identify novel pathways and targets in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“SLE lags behind rheumatoid arthritis in therapeutic advances. A number of trials of biologics have failed in SLE, whereas they have been found effective in rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Clinical slant
Sunday’s Plenary session at 11:00 a.m. will feature several top-rated abstracts, among them results of a phase III study on tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis to be presented by John Stone, MD. “Tocilizumab is a major breakthrough as a steroid-sparing treatment for the most common form of vasculitis that affects older adults,” Dr. Loeser said.
At 2:30 p.m. on Sunday at The Great Debate, Paul Emery, MD, and Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, will tackle the very important clinical topic of “To Taper or Not to Taper? – Biologic DMARDs in Low Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.”
“People aren’t sure what to do. The fear with tapering is rebound, with the disease coming back even more forcefully. There is new evidence to suggest that tapering may be safe under certain circumstances. This session should inform attendees on how to make the decision to taper and on the best way to do it,” Dr. Loeser commented.
The Late-Breaking Abstract session on Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. will feature six clinical trials. Dr. Loeser singled out a study to be presented by Elaine Husni, MD, on “Vascular Safety of Celecoxib versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen” in more than 20,000 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.
“The fear is that COX-2 inhibitors have increased cardiovascular risk. The data from this study that will be presented at the meeting should answer the question of whether or not this is true in patients with arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. Candida Fratazzi, MD, will talk about “Emerging Biosimilars in Therapeutic Management,” a subject of great interest since they have the potential to be equally effective and less expensive than current biologics.
Two “bookends” of the meeting will frame the opening and closing. Sunday at 7:30 a.m., the “Year in Review” session will feature the best published studies on rheumatologic diseases from the past year, based on the judgment of two experts. Ingrid Lundberg, MD, will present the best clinical studies and Bruce Cronstein, MD, will present the best basic science studies. Wednesday at 7:30 a.m., John Cush, MD, and Dr. Kavanaugh will present the “Rheumatology Roundup” of the best abstracts and put them into context. “This session is usually quite entertaining,” Dr. Loeser said.
More sessions of clinical import
“In keeping with our meeting theme of fine-tuning our care of patients with rheumatic disease, I want to point out several sessions,” Dr. Gardner said.
Attendees interested in sessions on clinical applicability will have to choose between two different sessions Monday at 4:30 p.m.: one on dermatomyositis, a relatively rare but difficult-to-treat entity, and the other about treatment of the patient with rheumatoid arthritis when the patient is not well and suffering from comorbidities.
Monday at 8:30 a.m., an “Osteoporosis Update” will give listeners perspective on current and future therapies.
Sunday at 2:30 p.m., new guidelines for steroid-induced osteoporosis will be presented.
“Four or five sessions on the Tech Track will show rheumatologists how they can improve their practice by using technology,” Dr. Gardner said. “Several high-quality sessions are important to educators, including ‘Flipped Classroom, Technology, and Reflection’ [Monday at 12:30 p.m.] and ‘Year in Review’ [Sunday at 1:00 p.m.].”
Monday at 11:00 a.m., the Plenary session will feature Workforce Study results on how many rheumatologists will be needed in the year 2030, and in which geographic locations. This session will also include a discussion of the impact of part-time rheumatologists.
“Two sessions I am excited about are ‘Treat to Target in 2016,’ Tuesday at 4:30 p.m., and ‘Rheumatic Diseases in Native Americans,’ Sunday at 11:00 a.m.,” Dr. Gardner noted. “Concurrent abstract sessions throughout the meeting will feature discussions on new biologics, small molecules, and gene therapy.”
FROM THE ACR ANNUAL MEETING
Biosimilars face barriers to broader acceptance
BOSTON – For rheumatologists, the primary selling points of biosimilar agents are their presumed efficacy and safety, and their promised cost savings, compared with the reference product, an original biologic agent.
But market forces, patient worries, and provider concerns threaten to file off at least some of biosimilars’ presumed competitive edge, says a rheumatologist involved in the development of biosimilars to treat rheumatic diseases.
“The availability of lower-priced biosimilars, if they’re truly lower priced, should decrease the cost of treating patients; if they’re not lower cost, then this advantage is not holding true,” said Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of medicine at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester.
But the world is far from perfect, and there are a host of educational, financial, and societal barriers to more widespread acceptance of these agents, he said.
Misperceptions
A common concern among patients and uninformed providers is that biosimilars are the same as biomimics – cheap, usually foreign-made knockoffs of existing drugs that have not undergone regulatory scrutiny and may be neither effective nor safe.
“Biomimics scare patients and scare physicians,” he said, “and misunderstanding of the regulatory approval process, or lack of understanding of the regulatory review or approval process, also intimidates individuals about biosimilars.”
Acceptance of biosimilars is also hampered by a lack of long-term, real-world efficacy and safety data. This is due, in part, to the “inverted pyramid” nature of the biosimilar development and approval process, which starts with myriad analytical, chemical, and functional characterization studies; nonclinical studies; and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses, but only one or two clinical trials. In contrast, the development process for innovator biologics starts with molecular characterization, then moves through the traditional drug development stages of laboratory and preclinical studies, phase I and II trials, and finally phase III registration trials and post-marketing studies.
Because most of the drug development for biosimilars happens behind the scenes, patients and their physicians are often leery about the finished product, no matter how rigorously it was developed. Similarly, there is a paucity of data on long-term immunogenicity of biosimilars, Dr. Kay noted.
Extrapolating about extrapolation
The idea of extrapolation of indications for biosimilars is also an alien concept to many. Simply put, if a reference product is approved for rheumatoid arthritis and has additional indications for treatment of psoriatic arthritis, the approved biosimilar to the original can be extrapolated to be effective against the same indications, even if it has only been tested against one of the indications.
“We have a tremendous amount of clinical experience not only in randomized, controlled clinical trials but also years of marketing experience showing that the reference product is effective and safe for each of the indications for which it’s been approved, and knowing that the biosimilar is essentially like another [manufacturing] run of the reference product allows us to extrapolate indications. But until you become comfortable with accepting that concept, it is certainly a barrier to biosimilars,” he said.
Patients are also scared by the issue of interchangeability, which would allow pharmacists to substitute one product for another without approval of either the patient or the prescribing physician. However, there are currently no biosimilar agents approved as interchangeable by the Food and Drug Administration.
What cost savings?
In the United States, the price of marketed biosimilars has been only 15% lower than that of the reference product, Dr. Kay noted, and multiple discount programs and rebates offered by marketers of the reference product make it difficult to figure out the actual costs of the drugs to payers and whether biosimilars are actually any cheaper.
Additionally, clinicians may be reluctant to adopt biosimilars because of a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing quirk that currently offers only a single “J” code with a blended reimbursement for all biosimilar agents of a reference product, regardless of cost differences.
Nordic competition model
Dr. Kay pointed to the Norwegian Tender System as a model for using biosimilars to drive down drug costs.
The Norwegian Drug Procurement Cooperation (LIS) annually procures drugs for all publicly funded hospitals, which ensures that prices offered to hospitals for patent-protected medicines are lower than those offered for distribution to wholesalers or pharmacies. Under this system, cost is the driving factor, assuming that drugs in a similar class have similar efficacy and safety, he said.
In 2015, when Norway was purchasing infliximab, it chose Remsima, the biosimilar, over the reference product Remicade, resulting in a 69% cost saving.
The potential interchangeability of Remsima and Remicade in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and chronic plaque psoriasis is currently being explored in the NOR-SWITCH trial.
Dr. Kay disclosed receiving institutional grants from AbbVie, Genentech, Roche Laboratories, and UCB, and serving as a consultant for those companies.
BOSTON – For rheumatologists, the primary selling points of biosimilar agents are their presumed efficacy and safety, and their promised cost savings, compared with the reference product, an original biologic agent.
But market forces, patient worries, and provider concerns threaten to file off at least some of biosimilars’ presumed competitive edge, says a rheumatologist involved in the development of biosimilars to treat rheumatic diseases.
“The availability of lower-priced biosimilars, if they’re truly lower priced, should decrease the cost of treating patients; if they’re not lower cost, then this advantage is not holding true,” said Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of medicine at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester.
But the world is far from perfect, and there are a host of educational, financial, and societal barriers to more widespread acceptance of these agents, he said.
Misperceptions
A common concern among patients and uninformed providers is that biosimilars are the same as biomimics – cheap, usually foreign-made knockoffs of existing drugs that have not undergone regulatory scrutiny and may be neither effective nor safe.
“Biomimics scare patients and scare physicians,” he said, “and misunderstanding of the regulatory approval process, or lack of understanding of the regulatory review or approval process, also intimidates individuals about biosimilars.”
Acceptance of biosimilars is also hampered by a lack of long-term, real-world efficacy and safety data. This is due, in part, to the “inverted pyramid” nature of the biosimilar development and approval process, which starts with myriad analytical, chemical, and functional characterization studies; nonclinical studies; and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses, but only one or two clinical trials. In contrast, the development process for innovator biologics starts with molecular characterization, then moves through the traditional drug development stages of laboratory and preclinical studies, phase I and II trials, and finally phase III registration trials and post-marketing studies.
Because most of the drug development for biosimilars happens behind the scenes, patients and their physicians are often leery about the finished product, no matter how rigorously it was developed. Similarly, there is a paucity of data on long-term immunogenicity of biosimilars, Dr. Kay noted.
Extrapolating about extrapolation
The idea of extrapolation of indications for biosimilars is also an alien concept to many. Simply put, if a reference product is approved for rheumatoid arthritis and has additional indications for treatment of psoriatic arthritis, the approved biosimilar to the original can be extrapolated to be effective against the same indications, even if it has only been tested against one of the indications.
“We have a tremendous amount of clinical experience not only in randomized, controlled clinical trials but also years of marketing experience showing that the reference product is effective and safe for each of the indications for which it’s been approved, and knowing that the biosimilar is essentially like another [manufacturing] run of the reference product allows us to extrapolate indications. But until you become comfortable with accepting that concept, it is certainly a barrier to biosimilars,” he said.
Patients are also scared by the issue of interchangeability, which would allow pharmacists to substitute one product for another without approval of either the patient or the prescribing physician. However, there are currently no biosimilar agents approved as interchangeable by the Food and Drug Administration.
What cost savings?
In the United States, the price of marketed biosimilars has been only 15% lower than that of the reference product, Dr. Kay noted, and multiple discount programs and rebates offered by marketers of the reference product make it difficult to figure out the actual costs of the drugs to payers and whether biosimilars are actually any cheaper.
Additionally, clinicians may be reluctant to adopt biosimilars because of a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing quirk that currently offers only a single “J” code with a blended reimbursement for all biosimilar agents of a reference product, regardless of cost differences.
Nordic competition model
Dr. Kay pointed to the Norwegian Tender System as a model for using biosimilars to drive down drug costs.
The Norwegian Drug Procurement Cooperation (LIS) annually procures drugs for all publicly funded hospitals, which ensures that prices offered to hospitals for patent-protected medicines are lower than those offered for distribution to wholesalers or pharmacies. Under this system, cost is the driving factor, assuming that drugs in a similar class have similar efficacy and safety, he said.
In 2015, when Norway was purchasing infliximab, it chose Remsima, the biosimilar, over the reference product Remicade, resulting in a 69% cost saving.
The potential interchangeability of Remsima and Remicade in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and chronic plaque psoriasis is currently being explored in the NOR-SWITCH trial.
Dr. Kay disclosed receiving institutional grants from AbbVie, Genentech, Roche Laboratories, and UCB, and serving as a consultant for those companies.
BOSTON – For rheumatologists, the primary selling points of biosimilar agents are their presumed efficacy and safety, and their promised cost savings, compared with the reference product, an original biologic agent.
But market forces, patient worries, and provider concerns threaten to file off at least some of biosimilars’ presumed competitive edge, says a rheumatologist involved in the development of biosimilars to treat rheumatic diseases.
“The availability of lower-priced biosimilars, if they’re truly lower priced, should decrease the cost of treating patients; if they’re not lower cost, then this advantage is not holding true,” said Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of medicine at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester.
But the world is far from perfect, and there are a host of educational, financial, and societal barriers to more widespread acceptance of these agents, he said.
Misperceptions
A common concern among patients and uninformed providers is that biosimilars are the same as biomimics – cheap, usually foreign-made knockoffs of existing drugs that have not undergone regulatory scrutiny and may be neither effective nor safe.
“Biomimics scare patients and scare physicians,” he said, “and misunderstanding of the regulatory approval process, or lack of understanding of the regulatory review or approval process, also intimidates individuals about biosimilars.”
Acceptance of biosimilars is also hampered by a lack of long-term, real-world efficacy and safety data. This is due, in part, to the “inverted pyramid” nature of the biosimilar development and approval process, which starts with myriad analytical, chemical, and functional characterization studies; nonclinical studies; and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses, but only one or two clinical trials. In contrast, the development process for innovator biologics starts with molecular characterization, then moves through the traditional drug development stages of laboratory and preclinical studies, phase I and II trials, and finally phase III registration trials and post-marketing studies.
Because most of the drug development for biosimilars happens behind the scenes, patients and their physicians are often leery about the finished product, no matter how rigorously it was developed. Similarly, there is a paucity of data on long-term immunogenicity of biosimilars, Dr. Kay noted.
Extrapolating about extrapolation
The idea of extrapolation of indications for biosimilars is also an alien concept to many. Simply put, if a reference product is approved for rheumatoid arthritis and has additional indications for treatment of psoriatic arthritis, the approved biosimilar to the original can be extrapolated to be effective against the same indications, even if it has only been tested against one of the indications.
“We have a tremendous amount of clinical experience not only in randomized, controlled clinical trials but also years of marketing experience showing that the reference product is effective and safe for each of the indications for which it’s been approved, and knowing that the biosimilar is essentially like another [manufacturing] run of the reference product allows us to extrapolate indications. But until you become comfortable with accepting that concept, it is certainly a barrier to biosimilars,” he said.
Patients are also scared by the issue of interchangeability, which would allow pharmacists to substitute one product for another without approval of either the patient or the prescribing physician. However, there are currently no biosimilar agents approved as interchangeable by the Food and Drug Administration.
What cost savings?
In the United States, the price of marketed biosimilars has been only 15% lower than that of the reference product, Dr. Kay noted, and multiple discount programs and rebates offered by marketers of the reference product make it difficult to figure out the actual costs of the drugs to payers and whether biosimilars are actually any cheaper.
Additionally, clinicians may be reluctant to adopt biosimilars because of a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing quirk that currently offers only a single “J” code with a blended reimbursement for all biosimilar agents of a reference product, regardless of cost differences.
Nordic competition model
Dr. Kay pointed to the Norwegian Tender System as a model for using biosimilars to drive down drug costs.
The Norwegian Drug Procurement Cooperation (LIS) annually procures drugs for all publicly funded hospitals, which ensures that prices offered to hospitals for patent-protected medicines are lower than those offered for distribution to wholesalers or pharmacies. Under this system, cost is the driving factor, assuming that drugs in a similar class have similar efficacy and safety, he said.
In 2015, when Norway was purchasing infliximab, it chose Remsima, the biosimilar, over the reference product Remicade, resulting in a 69% cost saving.
The potential interchangeability of Remsima and Remicade in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and chronic plaque psoriasis is currently being explored in the NOR-SWITCH trial.
Dr. Kay disclosed receiving institutional grants from AbbVie, Genentech, Roche Laboratories, and UCB, and serving as a consultant for those companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM A BIOSIMILARS IN RHEUMATOLOGY SYMPOSIUM
Intravitreal sirolimus proves effective in reducing noninfectious uveitis inflammation
Intravitreal sirolimus 440 mcg or 880 mcg administered on days 1, 60, and 120, was shown to significantly improve ocular inflammation with preservation of best-corrected visual acuity in patients with noninfectious uveitis of the posterior segment, a phase III study has shown.
In the multinational SAKURA (Study Assessing Double-masked Uveitis Treatment) study, 346 study eyes were analyzed in this randomly assigned, double-masked, actively controlled study. In the study arm given intravitreal sirolimus 440 mcg, 22.8% (P = .025) met the primary endpoint of no vitreous haze (VH) at month 5 in the study eye without the aid of rescue therapy. In the group given intravitreal sirolimus 880 mcg, 16.4% (P = .182) met the primary endpoint, compared with 10.3% of active controls who were given 44 mcg intravitreal sirolimus.
For the secondary outcome, 52.6% (P = .008) of the intravitreal sirolimus 440 mcg arm had VH scores of 0 or a 0.5+ response rate at month 5. In the intravitreal sirolimus 880 mcg, 43.1% (P = .228) achieved a VH score of 0 or a 0.5+ response rate, compared with 35% of the 44 mcg active control group. Mean best-corrected visual acuity was maintained throughout the study in each study arm, with 76.9% of those who received corticosteroids at baseline in the 440 mcg study arm successfully tapering them to 5 mg per day or less by month 5, and 66.7% of those receiving corticosteroids in the 880 mcg group doing so. This was in comparison with 63.6% of those using corticosteroids in the active control group. Adverse events were similar across the study, and all doses were well tolerated. The study was funded by Santen.
Read the full study in Ophthalmology (2016;23[11]:2413-23).
[email protected]
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Intravitreal sirolimus 440 mcg or 880 mcg administered on days 1, 60, and 120, was shown to significantly improve ocular inflammation with preservation of best-corrected visual acuity in patients with noninfectious uveitis of the posterior segment, a phase III study has shown.
In the multinational SAKURA (Study Assessing Double-masked Uveitis Treatment) study, 346 study eyes were analyzed in this randomly assigned, double-masked, actively controlled study. In the study arm given intravitreal sirolimus 440 mcg, 22.8% (P = .025) met the primary endpoint of no vitreous haze (VH) at month 5 in the study eye without the aid of rescue therapy. In the group given intravitreal sirolimus 880 mcg, 16.4% (P = .182) met the primary endpoint, compared with 10.3% of active controls who were given 44 mcg intravitreal sirolimus.
For the secondary outcome, 52.6% (P = .008) of the intravitreal sirolimus 440 mcg arm had VH scores of 0 or a 0.5+ response rate at month 5. In the intravitreal sirolimus 880 mcg, 43.1% (P = .228) achieved a VH score of 0 or a 0.5+ response rate, compared with 35% of the 44 mcg active control group. Mean best-corrected visual acuity was maintained throughout the study in each study arm, with 76.9% of those who received corticosteroids at baseline in the 440 mcg study arm successfully tapering them to 5 mg per day or less by month 5, and 66.7% of those receiving corticosteroids in the 880 mcg group doing so. This was in comparison with 63.6% of those using corticosteroids in the active control group. Adverse events were similar across the study, and all doses were well tolerated. The study was funded by Santen.
Read the full study in Ophthalmology (2016;23[11]:2413-23).
[email protected]
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Intravitreal sirolimus 440 mcg or 880 mcg administered on days 1, 60, and 120, was shown to significantly improve ocular inflammation with preservation of best-corrected visual acuity in patients with noninfectious uveitis of the posterior segment, a phase III study has shown.
In the multinational SAKURA (Study Assessing Double-masked Uveitis Treatment) study, 346 study eyes were analyzed in this randomly assigned, double-masked, actively controlled study. In the study arm given intravitreal sirolimus 440 mcg, 22.8% (P = .025) met the primary endpoint of no vitreous haze (VH) at month 5 in the study eye without the aid of rescue therapy. In the group given intravitreal sirolimus 880 mcg, 16.4% (P = .182) met the primary endpoint, compared with 10.3% of active controls who were given 44 mcg intravitreal sirolimus.
For the secondary outcome, 52.6% (P = .008) of the intravitreal sirolimus 440 mcg arm had VH scores of 0 or a 0.5+ response rate at month 5. In the intravitreal sirolimus 880 mcg, 43.1% (P = .228) achieved a VH score of 0 or a 0.5+ response rate, compared with 35% of the 44 mcg active control group. Mean best-corrected visual acuity was maintained throughout the study in each study arm, with 76.9% of those who received corticosteroids at baseline in the 440 mcg study arm successfully tapering them to 5 mg per day or less by month 5, and 66.7% of those receiving corticosteroids in the 880 mcg group doing so. This was in comparison with 63.6% of those using corticosteroids in the active control group. Adverse events were similar across the study, and all doses were well tolerated. The study was funded by Santen.
Read the full study in Ophthalmology (2016;23[11]:2413-23).
[email protected]
On Twitter @whitneymcknight